2000 Pa. Super. 145 - Commonwealth v. Hennigan’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably 2001 Pa. Super. 238 - Commonwealth v. DiStefano (2001), 2002 Pa. Super. 82 - Commonwealth v. Lambert (2002)
37 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 South Dakota v. Opperman · Colorado v. Bertine · Florida v. Wells · Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer · 111 S. Ct. 425 - Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Ben Cooper, Inc.
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of evidence is whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the factfinder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Heberling, [ 451 Pa.Super. 119 ] 678 A.2d 794, 795 (Pa.Super.1996) (citing Commonwealth v. Williams, [ 539 Pa. 61 ] 650 A.2d 420 (Pa.1994)). In applying [the above] test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. Commonwealth v. Cassidy, [ 447 Pa.Super. 192 ] 668 A.2d 1143, 1144 (Pa.Super.1995) (citations omitted). The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Valette, [ 531 Pa. ”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Definition of conspiracy. — A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he: (1) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or (2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime.... $ ‡ ‡ ‡ (e) Overt Act. — No person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime unless an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy is alleged and proved to have been done by him or by a person with whom he conspired.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘The purpose of an inventory search is not to uncover criminal evidence. Rather, it is designed to safeguard seized items in order to benefit both the police and the defendant.’ Commonwealth v. Woody, 451 Pa.Super. 324 , 679 A.2d 817, 819 (1996). See also Commonwealth v. Brandt, 244 Pa.Super. 154 , 866 A.2d 1288 , 1241 (1976) (en banc). Inventory searches serve one or more of the following purposes: (1) to protect the owner’s property while it remains in police custody; (2) to protect the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property; (3) to protect the police from potential danger; and (4) to assist the police in determining whether the vehicle was stolen and then abandoned. See South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). A warrantless inventory search of an automobile is different from a warrant-less investigatory search of the same. An inventory search of an automobile is permitted where: (1) the police have lawfully impounded the automobile; and (2) the police have acted in accordance with a reasonable, standard policy of routinely securing and inventorying the contents of the impounded vehicle. Id. at 368-372 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 . A warrant-less investigatory search of an automobile requires both a showing of probable cause to search and exigent circumstances. See Commonwealth v. Luv, 557 Pa. 570 , 735 A.2d 87 (1999); Commonwealth v. White, 543 Pa. 45 , 669 A.2d 896 (1995). In determining whether a proper inventory s”
2 later decisions 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.