Commonwealth v. Smith

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• a claim that “the trial court abused its discretion because it failed to consider the sentencing guidelines in imposing sentence” is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Hartle
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2006-03-02· cited 146×
• Commonwealth v. Ritchey
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2001-07-02· cited 135×
• Commonwealth v. McClendon
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-04-08· cited 82×
• Commonwealth v. Widmer
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1995-10-02· cited 43×
• Commonwealth v. Dotter
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-04-12· cited 35×
• Commonwealth v. Munson
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-09-28· cited 28×
• Commonwealth v. Catanch
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-10-18· cited 27×
• Commonwealth v. Wright
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-12-24· cited 25×
• Commonwealth v. Clever
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-07-03· cited 24×
• Commonwealth v. Kephart
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-07-15· cited 15×
• Commonwealth v. Dutter
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-11-18· cited 13×
• Commonwealth v. Jackson
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-01-15· cited 4×