Commonwealth v. Eichinger’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
1 district · 132 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Commonwealth v. Spotz (2011), Commonwealth v. Briggs (2011)
1 district · 132 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Lockett v. Ohio · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Woodson v. North Carolina · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board
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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“We have explained the abuse of discretion standard as follows:- - . It is not sufficient to persuade the appellate Court that it might have reached a different conclusion^] it is necessary to show an actual abuse of the discretionary power. An abuse of discretion will not be found- based on a mere error of. judgment, but rather exists where the court has .reached a conclusion [that] overrides or misapplies the law, or where the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of. partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]t is a basic principle of conflicts of laws cases involving criminal matters that the question of jurisdiction and that of governing substantive law always receives the same answer. The governing law is always the law of the forum state, if the forum court has jurisdiction.... [Once it is found that Pennsylvania has jurisdiction] [o]ur inquiry could end there. However, although it is not mandated where more than one state has a substantial connection with the activity in question, the forum state may analyze the interests of all states involved and choose which state’s law to apply. In Pennsylvania, we do not apply our law just because we have jurisdiction. Rather we have adopted a flexible choice of law rule which weighs the interests our sister-states may have in the transaction .... To start this analysis we first note that procedural rules and substantive law require separate considerations. It is a fundamental principle of conflicts of laws that a court will use the procedural rules of its own state. That is true in both civil and criminal cases, but especially in criminal cases as a sort of corollary to the local nature of substantive criminal law. Procedures in criminal cases are always those of the forum. On the other hand, substantive law gives or defines the right.”
2 later decisions 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.