Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 188 A3D 486 - Commonwealth v. Johnson

Commonwealth v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

2018

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Ornelas v. United States · Com., Dept. of Transp. v. O'CONNELL · 195 L. Ed. 2d 560 - Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard · 2016 Pa. Super. 293 - Commonwealth v. Evans · 2017 Pa. Super. 23 - Commonwealth v. Giron

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

  1. “[I]t is not necessary that the police completely review changes in the law, from the time of a motorist's previous arrest or DUI-related schooling until the motorist's next traffic stop. [An appellant's] ignorance of the most recent Supreme Court decisional law did not impose upon the police [ ] an affirmative duty to provide her with an update on criminal procedure prior to requesting a blood-draw. Neither our state nor the federal constitution compels our police officers to serve as road-side law professors. Given the foregoing, [an appellant's] personal failure to realize that the Supreme Court's issuance of Birchfield struck down § 3804(c)'s enhanced criminal penalties is irrelevant. [...Believing] that our Commonwealth's enhanced penalties remained in full force and effect [... was a m]isconception [ ] predicated upon a fundamentally flawed view of our federalism.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “had no obligation to enlighten [Appellant] as to the full details of federal constitutional law; [the police] only needed to tell [Appellant] the current, legal consequences of refusing to consent to the blood-draw. [They] did [so through the DL-26B form]. Thus, [Appellant's] consent was voluntary.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]he threat of civil penalties and evidentiary consequences is permissible under implied consent laws; however, a threat of added criminal sanctions is not.”
    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.