Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 719 A2D 346 - Commonwealth v. Burkholder

Commonwealth v. Burkholder’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2010

17 state decisions

130199820002010decided

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. Pierce · Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki · Commonwealth v. Williams · Commonwealth v. Johnson · 328 Pa. Super. 60 - Commonwealth v. Royer

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

  1. “In sentencing outside the guidelines, the sentencing judge must follow the mandate of § 9721(b) of the Sentencing Code, which provides in pertinent part: In every case where the court imposes a sentence outside the sentencing guidelines adopted by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing.. .the court shall provide a contemporaneous written statement of the reasons or reasons for the deviation from the guidelines. Failure to comply shall be grounds for vacating the sentence and re-sentencing the defendant.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is more than just an error in judgment and, on appeal, the trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, bias or ill-will.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[Moreover,] [i]n exercising its discretion, the trial court must consider the character of the defendant and the particular circumstances of the offense in light of the legislative guidelines for sentencing, and the court must impose a sentence that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.”
    2 later decisions 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.