1999 Pa. Super. 96 - Commonwealth v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has consistently held that enactments of the General Assembly enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality. Commonwealth v. Barud, 545 Pa. 297, 304 , 681 A.2d 162, 165 (1996) (citing Commonwealth v. Mikulan, 504 Pa. 244, 247 , 470 A.2d 1339, 1340 (1983)). All doubts are to be resolved in favor of sustaining the constitutionality of the legislation. Commonwealth v. Blystone, 519 Pa. 450, 463 , 549 A.2d 81, 87 (1988), affirmed, 494 U.S. 299 , 110 S.Ct. 1078 , 108 L.Ed.2d 255 (1990) (citing Hayes v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 493 Pa. 150, 155 , 425 A.2d 419, 421 (1981)). “[N]othing but a clear violation of the Constitution — a clear usurpation of power prohibited — will justify the judicial department in pronouncing an act of the legislative department unconstitutional and void.” Glancey v. Casey, 447 Pa. 77, 88 , 288 A.2d 812, 818 (1972) (citing Busser v. Snyder, 282 Pa. 440, 449 , 128 A. 80 (1925)). In other words, “we are obliged to exercise every reasonable attempt to vindicate the constitutionality of a statute and uphold its provisions.” Commonwealth v. Chilcote, 396 Pa.Super. 106 , 578 A.2d 429, 435 (1990) (citing Commonwealth v. Trill, 374 Pa.Super. 549 , 543 A.2d 1106, 1116 (1988)). “The right of the judiciary to declare a statute void, and to arrest its execution, is one which, in the opinion of all courts, is coupled with responsibili ties so grave that it is never to be exercised except in very clear cases.” Erie & North-East Railroad Co. v”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2012 Pa. Super. 157 - Commonwealth v. Barnett · 2008 Pa. Super. 214 - Commonwealth v. Yasipour

2. “In determining whether an individual was in custody, a court must examine all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, but “the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a 'formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement’ of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” Commonwealth v. Busch, 713 A.2d 97, 99 (Pa.Super.1998) (citing Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322-323 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994) (per curiam) (other citations omitted)). The initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views of the law enforcement officer or the person being questioned. “The fact that a[n] Appellant was the focus of the investigation is ... a relevant factor in determining whether he was ‘in custody,’ but does not require, per se, Miranda warnings.” Commonwealth v. Peters, 434 Pa.Super. 268 , 642 A.2d 1126, 1130 (1994).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2000 Pa. Super. 233 - Commonwealth v. Jones · Commonwealth v. Bess

3. “Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2000 Pa. Super. 91 - Commonwealth v. McClease