Commonwealth v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 state decisions

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

1. “In conducting our review, we are guided by the principle that acts passed by the General Assembly are strongly presumed to be constitutional, including the manner in which they were passed. Thus, a statute will not be found unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution. If there is any doubt as to whether a challenger has met this high burden, then we will resolve that doubt in favor of the statute’s constitutionality.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 162 - Commonwealth v. Fortson · 2016 Pa. Super. 211 - Commonwealth v. Kizak

2. “There is a colorable claim to be made that the federal test for gross disproportionality should not be followed lockstep in Pennsylvania, certainly at least insofar as it includes a federalism-based constraint that looks to sentences for similar offenses in other states.... [A] defendant pursuing a Pennsylvania sentencing disproportionality claim may allege that comparative and proportional justice is an imperative within Pennsylvania’s own borders, to be measured by Pennsylvania’s comparative punishment scheme. In that circumstance, it may be that the existing Eighth Amendment approach does not sufficiently vindicate the state constitutional value at issue, where sentencing proportionality is at issue.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Eisenberg, M., Aplt

3. “[A] court’s proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided .by objective criteria, including (i). the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences im-, posed -for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Succi