Commonwealth v. Sanchez’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Commonwealth v. Sherwood (2009), Commonwealth v. Pruitt (2008)
45 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 Illinois v. Gates · Duren v. Missouri · McCleskey v. Kemp · Hudson v. Michigan · Massachusetts v. Upton
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 207 requires that law enforcement officers give, or make a reasonable effort to give, notice of their identity, authority, and purpose to the occupant of the premises, unless exigent circumstances require immediate forcible entry. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 207. The rule is designed to promote peaceable entry by affording fair warning, and to safeguard legitimate privacy expectations to the degree possible. See Commonwealth v. Morgan, 517 Pa. 93, 97 , 534 A.2d 1054, 1056 (1987). The procedural rule subsumes the Fourth Amendment requirement that officers must announce their presence upon the execution of a search warrant and provide residents with some chance to open the door. See Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 , -, 126 S.Ct. 2159, 2162-63 , 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006) (quoting Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394 , 117 S.Ct. 1416, 1422 , 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Commonwealth v. Kane“The denial of a motion for a mistrial is assessed on appellate review according to an abuse of discretion standard. The central tasks confronting the trial court upon the making of the motion were to determine whether misconduct or prejudicial error actually occurred, and if so, to assess the degree of any resulting prejudice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[I]nformation received from an informant whose reliability is not established may be sufficient to create probable cause where there is some independent corroboration by police of the informant's information.”
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.