Commonwealth v. Barzyk’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 2024
20 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 Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki · Commonwealth v. Hardcastle · Commonwealth v. Jarman · 418 Pa. Super. 93 - Commonwealth v. Jones · 439 Pa. Super. 227 - Commonwealth v. Urrutia
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(f) Discretionary Aspects of Sentence. An appellant who challenges the discretionary aspects of a sentence in a criminal matter shall set forth in his brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence. The statement shall immediately precede the argument on the merits with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a claim that the sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly excessive is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of the sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Second, he must show that there is a substantial question that the sentence imposed is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.”
1 later decision 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.