Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 700 A2D 447 - Commonwealth v. Fink

Commonwealth v. Fink’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2019

18 state decisions

90199720002010decided

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 United States v. Cortez · Minnesota v. Dickerson · Commonwealth v. Cortez · 415 Pa. Super. 231 - Commonwealth v. Epps · 455 Pa. Super. 621 - Commonwealth v. Zogby

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

  1. “[T]his court now recognizes the seizure of non-threatening contraband detected by an officer’s “plain feel” during a pat-down for weapons if the officer is lawfully in a position to detect the presence of contraband, the incriminating nature of the contraband is immediately apparent and the officer has a lawful right of access to the object. Interest of B.C., [ 453 Pa.Super. 294 ,] 305, 683 A.2d [919,] 925 [1996] (citing Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 , 113 S.Ct. 2130, 2136-37 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993)).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “When reviewing the ruling of a suppression court, we must determine whether the factual findings are supported by the record. When it is a defendant who has appealed, we must consider only the evidence of the prosecution and so much of the evidence for the defense as, fairly read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted. Assuming that there is support in the record, we are bound by the facts as are found and we may reverse the suppression court only if the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are in error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “view the circumstances through the eyes of a trained officer, not an ordinary citizen.”
    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.