Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 719 A.2d 1049 - Commonwealth v. Harris

Commonwealth v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 2018

9 state decisions

50199820002010decided

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 · Klusman v. Bucks County Court of Common Pleas · City of Hazleton v. City Council · Shiomos v. STATE EMP. RETIREMENT BD. · Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones

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

  1. “The “best evidence” rule limits the method of proving the terms of a writing to the presentation of the original writing, where the terms of the instrument are material to the issue at hand, unless the original is shown to be unavailable through no fault of the proponent. McCormick, Evidence 560 (2nd ed.1972). The Pennsylvania courts use the “best evidence” rule when the contents of documentary evidence are at issue. Led-ford v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. Co., 236 Pa.Super. 65 , 345 A.2d 218 (1975). The best evidence rule is controlling only if the terms of a writing must be proved to make a case or provide a defense. McCormick, supra.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In deciding whether a trial judge considered only permissible factors in sentencing a defendant, an appellate court must, of necessity, review all of the judge’s comments. Moreover, in making this determination it is not necessary that an appellate court be convinced that the trial judge in fact relied upon an erroneous consideration; it is sufficient to render a sentence invalid if it reasonably appears from the record that the trial court relied in whole or in part upon such a factor.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[when the contents of a document are not at issue and the matter to be proved exists independently of the writing”
    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.