Commonwealth v. Whitman’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently November 2001 · most notably Commonwealth v. Wojdak (1983), Commonwealth v. McBride (1991)
34 state decisions
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 Commonwealth v. Clinton · Neely v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance · 167 Pa. Super. 642 - Commonwealth v. Thurman · Simon v. Fine · 178 Pa. Super. 330 - Commonwealth v. Dionisio
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Inference is a process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition sought to be established ... is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state of facts, already proved or admitted.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a deduction of an ultimate fact from other proved facts, which proved facts, by virture of the common experience of man, will support but not compel such deductions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Inference is a process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition sought to be established . . . is deducted as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state of facts, already proved or admitted. Simon v. Fine, 167 Pa.Super. 386, 391 , 74 A.2d 674 (1950). It has also been defined as "a deduction of an ultimate fact from other proved facts, which proved facts, by virture of the common experience of man, will support but not compel such deductions." In re Dilios' Will, 156 Me. 508 , 167 A.2d 571, 578 (1960). The right inference or conclusion in point of fact, is itself a matter of fact, and to be ascertained by the jury or fact finder. Simon v. Fine, supra, 167 Pa.Super. p. 391, 74 A.2d at p. 676 ; Neely v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co., 322 Pa. 417, 423 , 185 A. 784 (1936). The inference to be drawn from the established facts is thus for the fact finder and not for us. The question we face is not whether we would draw the same inference as the trial judge, but whether under the evidence he could make such deduction as a logical consequence of other facts or whether his conclusion is a mere guess, surmise, suspicion, or conjecture.”
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.