Commonwealth v. Halsted’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
November 1998
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Idaho v. Wright · Commonwealth v. Brady · Commonwealth v. Lively · 438 Pa. Super. 673 - Edwards v. Brandywine Hospital · 419 Pa. Super. 411 - Commonwealth v. Hanawalt
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he fact that the adverse party may know of the existence of evidence the Commonwealth could possibly intend to introduce, does not remove the Commonwealth’s burden of actually notifying that party that an attempt to introduce the evidence will be made. Furthermore, although it is true that persons licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania are charged with knowing the law of the Commonwealth, they are not to be penalized when the opposing party fails to abide by the requirements of those same laws.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.