Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 121 Pa. Commw. 613 - Commonwealth v. Crawford

121 Pa. Commw. 613 - Commonwealth v. Crawford’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
3
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 2018

9 state decisions

501988199020002010decided

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 Hando v. Commonwealth · 47 Pa. Commw. 214 - Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Quinlan · Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. Sinwell · Commonwealth v. Abraham · 73 Pa. Commw. 318 - Wisniewski v. Commonwealth

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “is well settled that a Department suspension proceeding for a refusal to take a breathalyzer is an independent civil proceeding separate and distinct from any criminal charges brought against a motorist. The civil proceeding to revoke or suspend a license is not intended as punishment; rather, it is designed to protect the public by denying intoxicated motorists the privilege of using the roadways. Also, a judgment in the criminal proceeding has no effect on the outcome of the civil proceeding because for a criminal proceeding the guilt of the accused must be established beyond a reasonable doubt and in a civil proceeding it is sufficient if the offense is established by a preponderance of the evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Clearly, the third and fourth elements of the “collateral estoppel” test are not present here. Firstly, we do not believe the Department and the District Attorney stand in sufficient relationship so thát the Department could be considered the same party as, or in privity with the District Attorney. Secondly, as we have already stated, the Department’s civil suspension is separate and distinct from the criminal proceeding initiated by the Clarion County District Attorney.”
    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.