Commonwealth v. Walls’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
229 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 231 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably Bowling v. Office of Open Records (2013), 2010 Pa. Super. 46 - Commonwealth v. Moury (2010)
229 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 United States v. Crosby · Commonwealth v. Devers · Commonwealth v. Mouzon · Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc. · Commonwealth v. Sessoms
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 231 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant. (2) The opportunity of the sentencing court to observe the defendant, including any presentence investigation. (3) The findings upon which the sentence was based. (4) The guidelines promulgated by the commission.”
32 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) General rule. — In determining the sentence to be imposed the court shall, except as provided in subsection (a.l), consider and select one or more of the following alterna tives, and may impose them consecutively or concurrently: • (1)' An order Of probation. (2) A determination of guilt without further penalty. (3) Partial confinement. (4) Total confinement. (5) A fine. (6) County intermediate punishment. (7) State intermediate punishment. [[Image here]] (b) General standards. — In selecting from the alternatives set.forth in subsection (a), the court shall follow the general principle that the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant. The court shall also consider any guidelines for sentencing and resentencing adopted by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing and taking effect under section 2155 (relating to publication of guidelines for sentencing, resentencing and parole and recommitment ranges following revocation).1 In every case in which the court imposes a sentence for a felony or misdemeanor, modifies a sentence, resen-tences an offender following revocation of probation, county intermediate punishment or State intermediate punishment or resentences following remand, the court shall make as a. part of the • record, and disclose in open court at the •time of”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“... we reaffirm that the guidelines have no binding effect, create no presumption in sentencing, and do not predominate over other sentencing factors — they are advisory guideposts that are valuable, may provide an essential starting point, and that must be respected and considered ... (underlining added)”
5 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.