2004 Pa. Super. 124 - Commonwealth v. Flamer’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
October 2011
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Karkaria · Commonwealth v. Torres · 1999 Pa. Super. 148 - Commonwealth v. Vetrini · 2003 Pa. Super. 126 - Commonwealth v. Gruff
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is well settled. We must view all' the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Additionally, it is not the role of an appellate court to weigh the evidence or to substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. It is within the province of the fact finder to determine the weight to be given to the testimony and to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. We will reverse the resulting verdict on the basis of legal insufficiency only where the testimony is so inherently unreliable that a verdict based upon it could amount to no more than surmise or conjecture.”
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.