2000 Pa. Super. 107 - Commonwealth v. Wituszynski’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, our responsibility is to determine whether the record supports the suppression court’s factual findings and the legitimacy of the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those findings. If the suppression court held for the prosecution, we consider only the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses and so much of the evidence for the defense as, fairly read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted. When the factual findings of the suppression court are supported by the evidence, the appellate court may reverse if there is an error in the legal conclusions drawn from those factual findings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 354 - Commonwealth v. Snell

2. “(a) General rule. — The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under one of the following conditions: (1) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn, except that such movement shall not be made by driving off the berm or shoulder of the highway. (2) Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the overtaken vehicle, except that such movement shall not be made by driving off the roadway. (b) Limitation. — No passing movement under this section shall be made unless the movement can be made in safety.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Wituszynski

3. “parking lots have been traditionally viewed as “trafficways” in this Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Proctor, 425 Pa.Super. 527 , 625 A.2d 1221, 1224 (1993) (evidence sufficiently established that mall parking lot was a “trafficway” because it was open to the public for shopping purposes in matter involving a DUI conviction) citing Commonwealth v. Cozzone, 406 Pa.Super. 42 , 593 A.2d 860 (1991) (parking area of condominium complex is trafficway as it is generally open to the public) and Commonwealth v. Wilson, 381 Pa.Super. 253 , 553 A.2d 452 (1989) (parking lot to Elk’s Lounge is trafficway as it is generally open to the public).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Wituszynski