Souder v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably Partin v. Commonwealth (1996), Stringer v. Commonwealth (1997)
37 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 Luttrell v. Commonwealth · Preston v. Commonwealth · Consolidated Coach Corporation v. Earl's Adm'r · Buckler v. Commonwealth · Logsdon v. Commonwealth
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) lapse of time between the main act and the declaration, (ii) the opportunity or likelihood of fabrication, (iii) the inducement to fabrication, (iv) the actual excitement of the declarant, (v) the place of the declaration, (vi) the presence there of visible results of the act or occurrence to which the utterance relates, (vii) whether the utterance was made in response to a question, and (viii) whether the declaration was against interest or self-serving.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. RC v. Com. · Thomas v. Commonwealth“[t]here is no recognized exception to the hearsay rule for social workers or the results of their investigations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sharp v. Commonwealth · BB v. Com.“The only argument made by the Commonwealth to support “serious physical injury” is that because the child sustained burns in and about the mouth [from a cigarette or cigarette lighter], which, standing alone, admittedly were not serious, that the child may have been exposed to smoke fumes which “create[d] a substantial risk of death.” ... Without in any way depreciating the hideous nature of such an act, the fact remains that there was nothing to prove that this child was in danger of death from this injury or from any other injury inflicted upon her.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.