Commonwealth v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
December 2014
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki · Commonwealth v. Brown · 448 Pa. Super. 616 - Grom v. Burgoon · 336 Pa. Super. 394 - Commonwealth v. Maute · Commonwealth v. Hubble
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When interpreting a statute, we are guided by several principles. Penal provisions must be strictly construed. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1928; Commonwealth v. Henderson, 444 Pa.Super. 170 , 663 A.2d 728 (1995). Also, we construe words of a statute according to their plain and common meaning. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1903; Grom v. Burgoon, 448 Pa.Super. 616 , 672 A.2d 823 (1996).”
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.