697 F. Supp. 821 - Box v. Petsock’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 2007
4 federal appellate · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Wong Sun v. United States · Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Rakas v. Illinois
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Q. Did you have an apartment here in Harrisburg? A. No, sir, I never had an apartment here in this City, no sir. Q. Did you live in the apartment over Penn Photo on Third Street? A. Let me explain this to you. The young lady that was living there by the name of Nellie, I can’t really pronounce the name. She was living there, right. I knew the young lady. I used to go there, in and out, you know, but I never lived there. ‡*********** Q. Did you ever stay with her in [the apartment above the Penn Photo store]? A. I have been there a couple of times, yes, sir. Q. Did you ever spend the night? A. Yes sir. Q. Did you ever have any clothes that you kept up there? A. Did I ever have any clothes? Maybe I had a couple pieces of clothes, yes . . . Maybe, I don’t remember, Sir. Q. While you were in this Harrisburg area, what did you do with your personal belongings, your clothes? A. I told you this was never my permanent address. I told you that I was to and fro. Q. You said on your direct testimony one of the ways you were getting money to live was off of DPA. Were you getting assistance in Harrisburg? A. Yes 1 were. I said that was one of the ways — didn’t say that was the only way. Q. To get assistance you have to have an address. What address did you give them as your address in Harrisburg? A. I gave them an address on Third Street at the youth Place, that is what I am trying to bring out. Q. The youth center? A. 1 don’t know the name of it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“whether evidence admitted in violation of the statute actually deprives a defendant of his rights to a fair trial must be viewed in light of the attendant circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Mimms, supra, 477 Pa. at 559 n. 8, 385 A.2d at 336 n. 8; see also Commonwealth v. Rainey, 271 Pa.Super. 240, 246 , 412 A.2d 1106, 1108-09 (1979). The main purpose of the rule is to prohibit inflammatory questions that could”
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.