Commonwealth v. Schatzel’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 2011
6 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 Adams v. Williams · Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Raiford · Commonwealth v. Ellis · Commonwealth v. Melendez · 415 Pa. Super. 252 - Commonwealth v. Lopez
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The first of these is a “mere encounter” (or request for information) which need not be supported by any level of suspicion, but carries no official compulsion to stop or to respond. The second, an “investigative detention” must be supported by a reasonable suspicion; it subjects a suspect to a stop and a period of detention, but does not involve such coercive conditions as to constitute the functional equivalent of an arrest. Finally, an arrest or “custodial detention” must be supported by probable cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Traffic stops, like Terry stops, constitute investigative rather than custodial detentions, unless under the totality of circumstances the conditions and duration of the detention become the functional equivalent of an arrest.”) quoting Commonwealth v. Gommer, 445 Pa.Super. 571 , 665 A.2d 1269, 1274 (1995), appeal denied, 546 Pa. 676 , 686 A.2d 1308 (1996). Commonwealth v. Proctor, 441 Pa.Super. 176 , 657 A.2d 8, 11 (1995) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In reviewing the decision of a suppression court, we must ascertain whether the record supports the factual findings of the suppression court and then determine the reasonableness of the inferences and legal conclusions drawn therefrom. We will consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and that defense evidence which remains uncon- tradicted when read in the context of the entire record.”
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.