Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 555 Pa. 72 - Commonwealth v. Robertson

Commonwealth v. Robertson’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
3
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2019

22 state decisions

120199920002010decided

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 367 Pa. Super. 333 - Commonwealth v. Bolden · 390 Pa. Super. 192 - Commonwealth v. Whisnant · Eck v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[A] sentencing court [must] carefully review the elements of the foreign offense in terms of classification of the conduct proscribed, its definition of the offense, and the requirements for culpability. Accordingly, the court may want to discern whether the crime is malum in se or malum prohibitum, or whether the crime is inchoate or specific. If it is a specific crime, the court may look to the subject matter sought to be protected by the statute, e.g., protection of the person or protection of the property. It will also be necessary to examine the definition of the conduct or activity proscribed. In doing so, the court should identify the requisite elements of the crime — the actus reus and mens rea — which form the basis of liability. Having identified these elements of the foreign offense, the court should next turn its attention to the Pennsylvania Crimes Code for the purpose of determining the equivalent Pennsylvania offense. An equivalent offense is that which is substantially identical in nature and definition [to] the out-of-state or federal offense when compared [to the] Pennsylvania offense.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`An equivalent offense is that which is substantially identical in nature and definition as the out-of-state or federal offense when compared to the Pennsylvania offense.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “`not only the elements of the crimes, but also ... the conduct to be prohibited and the underlying public policy of the two statutes.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.