Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 564 Pa. 321 - Commonwealth v. Andrews

Commonwealth v. Andrews’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
3
states following
August 2025
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably State v. Gallegos (2011), Commonwealth v. Foster (2011)

2 federal appellate · 41 state decisions

280200120102020decided

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 Missouri v. Hunter · Braverman v. United States · Griffith v. United States · Fertel-Rust v. Milwaukee Police Department · United States v. Townsend

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

  1. “greater punishment than the legislature intended.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “¶ 5 Our standard of review is as follows: A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. ... When reviewing a sufficiency claim the court is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.