2004 Pa. Super. 343 - Commonwealth v. McHale’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On the evening of July 18, 2001, Appellant attended a going-away party with six of his fellow co-workers at the 94th Aerosquadron Bar in Philadelphia. According to testimony of Appellant’s coworkers, Appellant consumed a significant amount of alcohol throughout the course of the evening. In addition, testimony was offered as to Appellant’s state of apparent intoxication, including his slurred speech and vacillating gait. Upon exiting the bar around 1:00 a.m., Appellant and another man walked to Appellant’s 1970 Buick GSX. Despite having neither a valid driver’s license nor insurance coverage, Appellant climbed into his car and drove home, however, not without incident. Appellant’s departure from his parking spot was witnessed by Officer Joseph Kayser, an off-duty police officer working as [a] security guard at a construction site located nearby. At trial, Kay-ser testified that Appellant revved the engine and then sped through the driveway adjacent to the bar prior to turning onto the road. As the car started down the road, Officer Keyser saw Appellant’s car come into contact with a car parked on the side of the road and then collide with two people who had been standing near the car, Tammy Seifert and Daniel Caputo. Despite colliding with a parked automobile and hitting two pedestrians, Appellant continued to drive away from the scene over Officer Keyser’s shouts to stop. Appellant became the focus of the investigation of this crime a few days later when, after the press rel”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2007 Pa. Super. 131 - Commonwealth v. McHale

2. “The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. The facts and circumstances need not be absolutely incompatible with the defendant’s innocence, but the question of any doubt is for the jury unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn form the combined circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 221 - Commonwealth v. Whitacre