2001 Pa. Super. 75 - Commonwealth v. Delbridge’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The rules of evidence preclude testimony that “does not tend to prove or disprove a material fact in issue, or to make such a fact more or less probable, or if it does not afford the basis for a logical or reasonable inference or presumption as to the existence of a material fact in issue.” Id. at 1154. See also Commonwealth v. Wall, 413 Pa.Super. 599 , 606 A.2d 449, 458 (Pa.Super.1992) (“[ejvidence is relevant if it ‘logically tends to prove, or disprove a material fact in issue, tends to make such a fact more or less probable, or affords the basis for or supports a reasonable inference or presumption regarding the existence of a material fact.’ ”). Moreover, “[t]o be deemed admissible, the [proffered evidence’s] probative value must outweigh the prejudice which may result from its admission.” Id. at 464 (citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Pa. Super. 198 - Commonwealth v. Thompson

2. “`[t]he determination of competency is a matter for the sound discretion of the trial court, which will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Com. v. DJA