Commonwealth v. Carper’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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

1. “We review a trial court's grant [or denial] of a pre-trial habeas corpus motion de novo and our scope of review is plenary. See Commonwealth v. Dantzler , 2016 PA Super 59 , 135 A.3d 1109 , 1112 (Pa. Super. 2016) ( en banc ). As this Court explained in Dantzler : A pre-trial habeas corpus motion is the proper means for testing whether the Commonwealth has sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. To demonstrate that a prima facie case exists, the Commonwealth must produce evidence of every material element of the charged offense(s) as well as the defendant's complicity therein. To meet its burden, the Commonwealth may utilize the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing and also may submit additional proof. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Price