Com. v. AMR’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
13 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Wexler · 244 Pa. Super. 62 - Commonwealth v. Malone · Carlacci v. Mazaleski · 2001 Pa. Super. 331 - Commonwealth v. Lutz · 1999 Pa. Super. 205 - Commonwealth v. Maxwell
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[1] the strength of the Commonwealth's case against the petitioner, [2] the reasons the Commonwealth gives for wishing to retain the records, [3] the petitioner's age, criminal record, and employment history, [4] the length of time that has elapsed between the arrest and the petition to expunge, and [5] the specific adverse consequences the petitioner may endure should expunction be denied.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In determining whether justice requires expungement, the court, in each particular case, must balance the individual's right to be free from the harm attendant to maintenance of the arrest record against the Commonwealth's interest in preserving such records.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Com. v. VAM“where the Commonwealth has dropped the charges against a petitioner or otherwise has failed to carry its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the Commonwealth must bear the burden of showing why an arrest record should not be expunged.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Com. v. VAM
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.