green
Positive treatment
8.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1934 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1934
1980
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
Commonwealth v. Humphrey
(4×)
While in another context, trial counsel might have reasonably believed that a mistrial would not be granted if an objection were entered, (see Commonwealth v. Maloney, 469 Pa. 342 , 365 A.2d 1237 (1976) (Plurality Opinion); but see Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 316 Pa. 129 , 173 A. 653 (1934)) and that an objection would only tend to emphasize the importance of Humphrey's silence at the time he was warned of his constitutional rights, instantly references to Humphrey's silence occurred in four separate instances.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Fawcett
Commonwealth v. Smith, 490 Pa. 380, 387-88 , 416 A.2d 986, 989 (1980); Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 316 Pa. 129, 139 , 173 A. 653, 657 (1934); Commonwealth v. Woods, 275 Pa.Superior Ct. 392, 405, 418 A.2d 1346, 1352-1353 (1980); Commonwealth v. Oglesby, 274 Pa.Superior Ct. 586, 593, 418 A.2d 561, 565 (1980); Commonwealth v. Gunderman, 268 Pa.Superior Ct. 142, 148-149, 407 A.2d 870, 873 (1979).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Gomino
An objection and motion for the withdrawal of a juror made at the close of opposing counsel’s speech is untimely: Com. v. Wilcox, 316 Pa. 129, 138, 139 , 173 A. 653 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Molinari
As the Supreme Court, affirming on Judge Keller’s opinion, stated in Com. v. Wilcox, 316 Pa. 129, 143, 144 , 173 A. 653 , 659: “After all, whether or not the judgment will be reversed because of the remarks of the district attorney depends not only on the remarks themselves but also on the attitude of the court following objection and the probable effect as reflected in the verdict of the jury.” Further, a defendant cannot object to remarks made by a prosecutor which defense counsel invited.
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Oglesby
(2×)
See Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 316 Pa. 129 , 173 A. 653 (1934).
examined
Cited "see"
Med-Mar, Inc. v. DILWORTH
(4×)
See Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 316 Pa. 129 , 173 A. 653 (1934). . . .
discussed
Cited "see"
Dura Seal Products Co. v. Carver
(2×)
See Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 316 Pa. 129, 137 , 173 A. 653 (1934).
examined
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Cisneros
(4×)
See Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 112 Pa. Superior Ct. 240 , 316 Pa. 129 , 173 A. 653 , and Commonwealth v. Kerr, 171 Pa. Superior *451 Ct. 131, 89 A. 2d 889 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Drischler
(2×)
See Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 316 Pa. 129 , 173 A. 653 ; Commonwealth v. Mika, 317 Pa. 487 , 177 A. 3 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Heaton
(2×)
See Com. v. Massarelli, 304 Pa. 335, 339 , 156 A. 101 , and Com. v. Wilcox, 112 Pa. Superior Ct. 240 , 170 A. 455 , affirmed, 316 Pa. 129 , 173 A. 653 .
examined
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Kelson
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Com. v. Wilcox, 112 Pa. Superior Ct. 240 , 170 A. 455 , affirmed 316 Pa. 129 , 173 A. 653 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Lynott
(2×)
See Com. v. Wilcox, 112 Pa. Superior Ct. 240 , 170 A. 455 , affirmed 316 Pa. 129 , 173 A. 653 ; Com. v. Del Vaccio, 299 Pa. 547 , 149 A. 696 ; Com. v. Windish, 176 Pa. 167 , 34 A. 1019 ; Com. v. Ezell, 212 Pa. 293 , 61 A. 930 ; Com. v. Shields, 50 Pa. Superior Ct. 1, 24 ; and Com. v. Tri marchi, 133 Pa. Superior Ct. 307 , 2 A. 2d 540 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Crittenton
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 316 Pa. 129 , affirming, Per Curiam, 112 Pa. Superior Ct. 240 , for a history of the review of this question.
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Mika
(2×)
See Com. v. Weber, 167 Pa. 153 , 31 A. 481 , and Com. v. Wilcox, 316 Pa. 129 , 173 A. 653 .
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Maloney
(4×)
See also, Commonwealth v. Kloiber, 378 Pa. 412 , 106 A.2d 820 (1954) and Commonwealth v. Greco, 227 Pa.Super. 19 , 323 A.2d 132 (1974). 5 But in Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 316 Pa. 129, 144 , 173 A. 653, 660 (1934), this Court affirmed “. . . on the learned opinion of Judge Keller . . . ” of the Superior Court which opinion included this statement: “If the remark is of such a character as to violate the accused’s constitutional rights, such as a reference to his failure to take the witness stand, it cannot be cured by the trial judge and a new trial must be ordered ..” Relying on Commonw…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Commonwealth
v.
Wilcox, Appellant
v.
Wilcox, Appellant
May 21, 1934.
William C. Alexander , for appellant.
William R. Toal , Assistant District Attorney, with him William J. MacCarter, Jr. , District Attorney, for appellee.
Frazer, Simpson, Kephart, Schaeeer, Maxey, Drew, Linn.
Per Curiam,
The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed on the learned opinion of Judge Keller, which fully and correctly determines all questions raised by the record.