Com. v. LN’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 2026
12 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki · McKnight v. Commonwealth · Mims v. Browning Manufacturing · Styer v. Hugo
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Therefore, in order to sustain a conviction for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, the Commonwealth must establish the perpetrator engaged in acts of oral or anal intercourse, which involved penetration however slight. Commonwealth v. Poindexter, 435 Pa.Super. 509 , 646 A.2d 1211, 1215 (1994), appeal denied, 540 Pa. 580 , 655 A.2d 512 (1995). In order to establish penetration, some oral contact is required. See Commonwealth v. Trimble, 419 Pa.Super. 108 , 615 A.2d 48 (1992) (finding actual penetration of the vagina is not necessary; some form of oral contact with the geni-taha is all that is required). Moreover, a person can penetrate by use of the mouth or the tongue. See In the Interest of J.R., 436 Pa.Super. 416 , 648 A.2d 28 (1994), appeal denied, 540 Pa. 584 , 655 A.2d 515 (1995) (stating “Deviate sexual intercourse is considered to have occurred if one’s mouth or tongue penetrates the vaginal area of another”).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Questions concerning the admissibility of evidence are within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse the court’s decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. Rule 401 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence states, ‘[rjelevant evidence’ means any evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Rule 403 states, ‘[ajlthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.’”
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.