2004 Pa. Super. 113 - Commonwealth v. Parker’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably 2006 Pa. Super. 132 - Commonwealth v. Evans (2006), Commonwealth v. Bricker (2005)
24 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 Millili v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing · Commonwealth v. Lord · Commonwealth v. Ellis · 415 Pa. Super. 252 - Commonwealth v. Lopez · Commonwealth v. Jones
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Constructive possession is a legal fiction, a pragmatic construct to deal with the realities of criminal law enforcement. Constructive possession is an inference arising from a set of facts that possession of the contraband was more likely than not. We have defined constructive possession as “conscious dominion.” We subsequently defined “conscious dominion” as “the power to control the contraband and the intent to exercise that control.” To aid application, we have held that constructive possession may be established by the totality of the circumstances.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law subject to plenary review. We must determine whether the evidence admitted at [the SVP hearing] and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, is sufficient to support all elements of the [statute]. A reviewing court may not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. At a hearing prior to sentencing the court shall determine whether the Commonwealth has proved by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is a sexually violent predator. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the determination of SVP status, we will reverse the trial court only if the Commonwealth has not presented clear and convincing evidence sufficient to establish each element required by the statute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Tlhe mere possession of stolen property is insufficient to prove guilty knowledge, and the Commonwealth must introduce other evidence ... that demonstrates that the defendant knew or had reason to believe that the property was stolen.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fortson v. State
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.