Commonwealth v. Gibbs’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently November 2013
2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Poland v. Arizona · Hodgson v. Minnesota · United States v. Energy Resources Co. · Commonwealth v. Beasley · Commonwealth v. Gibbs
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“theory to bring an unintended killing within the meaning of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(2) as this is a matter more appropriately dealt with by the General Assembly. While Hackett correctly states the law, his argument is meritless since the evidence clearly reflects that one of the contemplated victims of Hackett's contract to kill was Maureen Dunne. The evidence reflects that Hackett made clear that if Maureen Dunne happened to be present when Gregory Ogrod was about to be killed, she would die as well. In seeking to enlist the aid of Edgar Torres in finding a”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The defendant paid or was paid by another person or had contracted to pay or be paid by another person or had conspired to pay or be paid by another person for the killing of the victim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is not the finding of the presence or absence of an aggravating circumstance that is dispositive of whether the defendant will receive the death penalty, but rather it is the ultimate conclusion reached after the factfinder weighs all the factors found, both aggravating and mitigating... . When a jury has imposed a death penalty in a first trial, double jeopardy does not attach no matter what aggravating circumstances were found by the jury in the first trial or what aggravating circumstances are presented to the jury in the second trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Commonwealth v. May
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.