COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Donald YARGER, Appellee

1994-10-05 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · United States

read the judgment

3What it rests on

2Relied on since

0Departed from

Relied on since

The judgments that cite this one. This is the answer that tells you the case is still alive.

20001 judgments5 years silent20051 judgments

2 judgments have relied on it, across 2000–2005

first 2000 · last 2005 · busiest 2000 (1 judgments)

2005-01-12The STATE of Texas v. Matthew Reid MECHLER, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2 2000-03-21COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Nathan M. MURRAY, AppellantSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

What it rests on

1992-01-22COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. James Lee MODAFFARE, AppellantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania 1992-01-22COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Luther L. JARMAN, Jr., AppellantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania 1983-12-30COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Richard M. MIKULAN, AppelleeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

1 point outside the corpus. Read from the text, but no judgment held here answers to them. They are counted rather than hidden: this corpus is a slice, not the law.

Departed from

No judgment recorded a departure from this one.

Departure is not detected yet, and the gap is deliberate. Searching for the words the Court might use was measured on 1,019 judgments: "depart from" appears 100 times and most often means departing from the facts found by a domestic court; "overruled" appears 44 times, usually about a domestic judgment; "abandon" appears 123 times, most often as abandoned firearms. Tightened to require the Court itself as the subject, precision was still around 40%, the rest being a dissenting judge complaining, or a national supreme court departing from its own case-law. Telling a lawyer an authority is dead when it is alive is worse than saying nothing, so nothing is what this says until each candidate can be judged properly.

not characterised

Most citations carry no word at all. The Court does not always say what it is doing when it cites one of its own judgments, and where it stayed silent nothing is inferred here.