Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 632 Pa. 75 - Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Bracey, E.

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Bracey, E.’s Empirical Analysis

2015

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Atkins v. Virginia · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer · Zettlemoyer v. Pennsylvania · Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr

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

  1. “A question involviág whether a petitioner fits the definition of [intellectual disability] is fact intensive as it will primarily be based upon the testimony of experts and involve multiple credibility determinations. Accordingly, our standard of review is whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the legal conclusion drawn therefrom is clearly erroneous. We choose this highly deferential standard because the court that finds the facts will know them better than the reviewing court will, and so its application of the law to the facts is likely to be more accurate.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Did those who knew the person best during the developmental stage-his family, friends, teachers, employers, authorities-think he was mentally retarded at that time, and, if so, act in accordance with that determination?”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “The SEM is 'a unit of measurement: 1 SEM equates to a confidence of 68% that the measured score falls within a given score range, while 2 SEM provides a 95% confidence level[.]' Hall , at 1995 (citation omitted). The 'given range' for 1 SEM is thus 5 points, within 2½ above or below the articulated IQ score; the range for 2 SEM is 10 points, within 5 points above or below the IQ score. 'The larger range logically engenders more confidence that it encompasses the relevant IQ.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.