Commonwealth v. Blair’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
11
cited by 11 later decisions
5
states following
April 2012
most recently cited
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2012
11 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 Barker v. Wingo · White v. Pearlman · Burkett v. Cunningham · Smith v. Swope · United States v. Davis
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.
“[The appellant] asked this court to apply the doctrine of credit for time erroneously at liberty[.] We decline to grant [the appellant] relief. We note that the doctrine of credit for time spent erroneously at liberty based on simple or mere negligence, as applied under the circumstances herein, pres ents an issue of first impression in Pennsylvania[.] We acknowledge the fact that [the appellant] failed to be incarcerated because of an error not his own. Further, [the appellant] did nothing to hinder the order to commence service of sentence; he did not flee, did not conceal his identity, lived and worked in the Western Pennsylvania area, and had attended the Community College of Allegheny County. 7 [The appellant] claims he did not have knowledge, during the time period in question, that his judgment of sentence had been affirmed by this court. While we sympathize with [the appellant’s] plight, we conclude, however, that these factors do not and cannot nullify any portion of [the appellant’s] sentence of imprisonment. We will not allow the court system’s inadvertent error to cancel any part of [the appellant’s] punishment for the crimes for which he was justly convicted and sentenced. Society has an interest in knowing that its criminals are serving the punishment to which they have been sentenced, regardless of any unintended delay or negligent error attributable to the government. The fact remains that, regardless of the delay, [the appellant] has not served the time he wa”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Rule 1763. Vacation of Supersedeas on Affirmance of Conviction Unless otherwise ordered pursuant to this chapter, upon the remand of the record in any matter in which the judgment of sentence was affirmed a defendant who has been released pending appeal shall appear in the lower court at such time as the defendant may be there called, and shall be committed by that court until the defendant has complied with the original sentence, or any part thereof which had not been performed at the time the defendant was released pending appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[The appellant] now asserts that he should be credited for the time he was at liberty between his release from the Montana State Prison and his arrest by United States marshals. He suggests that he was confused and somehow just did not understand that the federal authorities might still expect him to serve his 15 year sentence for federal crimes. Of course, he never did ask or otherwise try to find out; he just took advantage of his freedom. I am far from impressed by his claim that fairness requires that he be given the credit he seeks. I fail to see, and [the appellant] does not explain, why the mere fact of his improper release by Montana state authorities means that he can avoid service of his sentence for his federal crimes. I do agree that the government cannot play cat and mouse with prisoners. I also agree that it is sad when someone begins to make a fresh start and is then arrested for his past sins. What I disagree with is allowing criminals, like [the appellant], to take no responsibility for themselves when state authorities err and the federal authorities do not... .[The appellant] should not benefit. It is he who earned the 15 year punishment for his drug manufacturing. He should not be deprived of his desserts.... Clark, 80 F.3d at 375-76 (Fernandez, J., concurring and dissenting). As mentioned previously, there are no Pennsylvania cases that have specifically applied the doctrine of erroneous time at liberty as it has been examined herein. [The appellant] does”
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.