1999 Pa. Super. 110 - Commonwealth v. Kling’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 2024
2 federal appellate · 18 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 McKnight v. Commonwealth · Styer v. Hugo · Commonwealth v. Drum · Abraham v. Department of Corrections · Commonwealth v. Comer
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty, recklessness of consequences, and a mind regardless of social duty, although a particular person may not be intended to be injured. Malice may be found where the defendant consciously disregarded an unjustified and extremely high risk that his actions might cause serious bodily injury.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Offense defined. — A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he: (1) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifest ing extreme indifference to the value of human life;”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“At speeds in excess of 80 m.p.h., both vehicles reached the crest of Scrub Ridge, and with appellant in the lead, the improvident competitors began descending the mountain road. The first downside mile from the top of Scrub Ridge is riddled with eight substantial curves and five cautionary speed signs. Nevertheless, appellant maintained his excessive speeds, pulling away from the Camaro and disappearing into the blind curves. Through the second of these curves, appellant was on the wrong side of the road and nearly hit Jean Pepple traveling the opposite direction in her minivan. In spite of this near collision, appellant neither slowed down nor took action to mitigate the obvious danger from his racing. Approaching the eighth major curve on the downslope, appellant swung into the no-passing zone and blew past two pickup trucks traveling in front of him. He then headed into the sharp double curve at nearly 70 m.p.h., crossed the center line again, and struck a vehicle driven by Helen Mellott.”
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.