2005 Pa. Super. 351 - Commonwealth v. Ratsamy’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. MacOlino · Commonwealth v. Santiago · 295 Pa. Super. 429 - Commonwealth v. Hawkins · 456 Pa. Super. 498 - Commonwealth v. Cappellini · 2002 Pa. Super. 82 - Commonwealth v. Lambert
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Commonwealth must prove both the possession of the controlled substance and the intent to deliver the controlled substance. It is well settled that all the facts and circumstances surrounding possession are relevant in making a determination of whether contraband was possessed with intent to deliver. In Pennsylvania, the intent to deliver may be inferred from possession of a large quantity of controlled substance. It follows that possession of a small amount of a controlled substance supports the conclusion that there is an absence of intent to deliver. button, it then becomes necessary to analyze other factors.””
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.