Commonwealth v. Coss’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 2015
3 federal appellate · 7 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 · Styer v. Hugo · Shiomos v. STATE EMP. RETIREMENT BD. · Commonwealth v. Devers · Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Raiford
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ppellant does not have an appeal as of right from the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Two requirements must be met before appellant’s challenge to the judgment of sentence will be heard on the merits. First appellant must ‘set forth in his brief a concise statement of reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence.’ Second, the appellant must show ‘that there is a substantial question that the sentence imposed is not appropriate under this chapter.’ This Court has held that a claim of excessiveness of sentence does not raise a substantial question where the sentence is within the statutory limits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The court shall impose a sentence of total confinement if, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the 'crime and the history, character, and condition of the defendant, it is of the opinion that the total confinement of the defendant is necessary because: (1) there is undue risk that during a period of probation or partial confinement the defendant will commit another crime; (2) the defendant is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution; or (3) a lesser sentence will depreciate the seriousness of the crime of the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Although a claim that the trial court failed to provide reasons for its sentence technically involves the discretionary aspects of sentencing, the trial court has no discretion in determining whether or not to place such reasons on the record. Rather, the Sentencing Code provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]n every case in which the court imposes a sentence for a felony or misdemeanor, the court shall make as a part of the record, and disclose in open court at the time of sentencing, a statement of the reason or reasons for the sentence imposed.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b).”
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.