2004 Pa. Super. 421 - Commonwealth v. Costa’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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Malice has been characterized as exhibiting an “extreme indifference to human life,” and “may be found to exist not only in an intentional killing, but also in an unintentional homicide where the perpetrator ‘consciously disregarded an unjustified and extremely high risk that his actions might cause death or serious bodily harm.’ ” Indeed, our Court has stated that an inference of malice is not supported even by evidence which demonstrates that a defendant acted out of anger and rage; in such a case, voluntary manslaughter, not murder, is established. Thus, the mental state of malice aforethought is significantly more than mere carelessness or neglect, or the disregard of a chance or possibility of death, and it is this special frame of mind that is required to obtain a conviction under Section 2506.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hopfer

2. “¶ 9 Preliminarily, we note that [t]he constitutionality of a statute is a question of law; therefore, the scope of appellate review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Moss, 852 A.2d 374 (Pa.Super.2004). “The constitutional validity of duly enacted legislation is presumed. The party seeking to overcome the presumption of validity must meet a formidable burden.” Commonwealth v. Haughwout, 837 A.2d 480, 487 (Pa.Super.2003) (citing Commonwealth v. Means, 565 Pa. 309 , 773 A.2d 143 (2001)). “A statute will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution; all doubts are to be resolved in favor of a finding of constitutionality.” Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 574 Pa. 460, 466 , 832 A.2d 418, 421 (2003) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2007 Pa. Super. 26 - Commonwealth v. Etchison

3. “(a) When culpability requirements are inapplicable to summáry offerees and to offenses defined by other' statutes. — The requirements of culpability prescribed by section 301' of this title (relating to requirement of voluntary act) and section 302 of .this title (relating to general requirements of culpability) do not apply to: (1) summary offenses, unless the requirement involved is included in the definition of the offense or the court determines that its application is consistent with effective enforcement of the law defining the offense; or (2) offenses ’defined by statutes other than this title, in so far as a legislative purpose to impose absolute liability for such offenses or with respect to any material element thereof plainly appears.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Kakhankham