Commonwealth v. Davidson’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 98 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Commonwealth v. Baldwin (2009), Clifton v. Allegheny County (2009)
2 federal appellate · 98 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · United States v. Salerno · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Kolender v. Lawson
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The General Assembly's use of the term `any,' which could mean one or more items, suggests a lack of restriction or limitation. Further, all of the objects listed in the statute are singular, e.g., a `photograph' or a `computer depiction,' meaning that each photograph or computer depiction constitutes a distinct occurrence of offensive conduct in violation of Section 6312(d). As the Superior Court correctly reasoned in [ Commonwealth v. ] Koehler [, 914 A.2d 427 (Pa.Super. 2006)], Section 6312(d) specifically criminalizes possession of any computer depiction, not possession of a computer hard drive which could contain an unknown quantity of images. [Citation.] The plain language of the statute evidences the intent of the General Assembly to make each image of child pornography possessed by an individual a separate, independent crime under Section 6312(d). Furthermore, it is not difficult to discern why the General Assembly would target individual instances of possession. Each use of a minor to create a visual depiction of child pornography constitutes a separate and distinct abuse of that child, and thus represents an individual violation of the statute. As noted in United States v. Esch [, 832 F.2d 531 (10th Cir.1987)], `the key element of the offense is the use [of] a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of creating a visual depiction of such conduct.... Each photograph depended upon a separate and distinct use of [a minor]." [Citation.] As the Supe”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[e]very statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n determining whether a statute is unconstitutional due to overbreadth, a “court’s first task is to determine whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.” Commonwealth v. Ickes, 582 Pa. 561 , 873 A.2d 698, 702 (2005) (quoting Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982)). The “overbreadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 615 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 ....”
3 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.