2001 Pa. Super. 121 - Commonwealth v. Hinds’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is our finding that the General Assembly’s goal and purpose [in enacting this statute] was to protect the children of our communities from the ravages and evils of the illegal drug trade that pervades our country. Through the enactment of section 6317, it attempted to fortify the barrier that segregates the places where our children frequent from the illegal drug scene. A strict reading of the statute exemplifies the General Assembly’s intent. The statute protects our children “within 1000 feet of the real property on which is located a public, private or parochial school or a college or a university.” Furthermore, it protects our children in the places where they routinely play. The General Assembly did not choose to limit this protection solely to school play areas or municipal facilities, but chose to reinforce the purpose of the statute by including all areas within 250 feet of the real property on which is located a recreational center or playground.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2008 Pa. Super. 177 - Commonwealth v. Williams

2. “[I]n many places, it is not uncommon for institutions of learning to lease commercial space to accommodate students. A literal reading of the statute would extend the `zone' to 1000 feet around a commercial building even if its use as a school is not generally known.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Lewis