Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2003 Pa. Super. 424 - Commonwealth v. Zingarelli

2003 Pa. Super. 424 - Commonwealth v. Zingarelli’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently February 2026

19 state decisions

160200320102020decided

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 Sherman v. United States · Commonwealth v. Williams · Millili v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing · Commonwealth v. Lord · 435 Pa. Super. 509 - Commonwealth v. Poindexter

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

  1. “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. 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.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), an appellant must file a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal when ordered to do so by the trial court. Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415 , 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa.1998). Failure to timely file the requested statement renders all issues waived. Commonwealth v. Overby, 2000 PA Super 3 , 744 A.2d 797 (Pa.Super.2000).”
    1 later decision 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.