Dooley v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 28 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The general rule approved by various decisions and legal articles is that the test of the constitutionality of such statutes making proof of a certain fact prima jade or presumptive evidence of another fact, is whether there is a natural and rational evidentiary relation between the fact proven and the ultimate fact presumed, and that the inference of one fact from proof of another must not be so unreasonable as to be purely arbitrary. To state the rule in positive terms, in order for such a statute to be valid, there must be some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact to be established.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sharp v. Commonwealth · 11 Va. App. 163 - Myatt v. Commonwealth

2. ““The general rule is that the test of the constitutionality of statutes making proof of a certain fact prima facie or presumptive evidence of another fact is whether there is a natural and rational evidentiary relation between the fact proven and the fact presumed. Where such evidentiary relation exists and where the presumption is found to be both reasonable and rebuttable it does not violate the due process amendment. . . “That there is a natural and rational evidentiary relation existing between the results of a speed checked by radiomicrowaves and the speed of the motor vehicle checked by them can hardly be denied . . . “. . . defendant contents himself by citing technical data in argument which tends to cast doubt upon the accuracy of radar devices. He recounts many conditions and happenings which allegedly affect the correct reading of radar under given circumstances, and argues that in this light the prima facie presumption created by the statute is irrebuttable. “. . . It will be observed that no attempt was made to show that the radar equipment, which had been tested for accuracy just prior to the defendant’s arrest, did not properly record the speed. The examples cited by the defendant in his argument in an effort to show that the equipment might have been ‘thrown off’ and may have improperly recorded his speed, show beyond peradventure that if such occurred he could have introduced evidence to rebut the prima facie presumption created by the statute.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 28 Pa. D. & C.2d 157 - Commonwealth v. Gideon

3. “(c) No operator of a motor vehicle may be arrested under this section unless signs have been placed at the State line on the primary highway system, and outside cities and towns having over 3500 population, on the primary highways to indicate the legal rate of speed and that the speed of motor vehicles may be measured by radiomicro waves or other electrical devices.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Royals v. Commonwealth