2006 Pa. Super. 56 - Commonwealth v. Tareila’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In order to determine the relationship between [ ] two provisions ... a review of the general principles of statutory construction is appropriate. When construing a statute, our objective is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent. 1 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 1921(a). “In pursuing that end, we are mindful that ‘when the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.’ ” Commonwealth v. Shiffler, [ 583 Pa. 478 ] 879 A.2d 185, 189 ([Pa.] 2005) (citing 1 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 1921(b)). “Indeed, ‘as a general rule, the best indication of legislative intent is the plain language of a statute.’ ” Id.[]. “Moreoever, while statutes generally should be construed liberally, penal statutes are always to be construed strictly, 1 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 1928(b)(1), and any ambiguity in a penal statute should be interpreted in favor of the defendant.” Id. Additionally, when construing a statute, we must begin with a presumption that the General Assembly intends the entire statute to be effective and certain. 1 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 1922(2).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Cannavo · 2008 Pa. Super. 84 - Commonwealth v. Ede