Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2007 Pa. Super. 206 - Commonwealth v. Pitner

2007 Pa. Super. 206 - Commonwealth v. Pitner’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

12 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 425 Pa. Super. 425 - Commonwealth v. Burnside · Commonwealth v. Conklin · 2007 Pa. Super. 48 - Commonwealth v. Hardy · 421 Pa. Super. 233 - Commonwealth v. Torres · 2007 Pa. Super. 73 - Commonwealth v. Williams

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

  1. “... [W]e consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner. In that light, we decide if the evidence and all reasonable inferences from that evidence are sufficient to establish the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We keep in mind that it was for the trier of fact to determine the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. The jury was free to believe all, part or none of the evidence. This Court may not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment or that of the factfinder.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Whether the Superior Court erred in holding that the legal maximum sentence under 35 P.S. § 780-113(b) of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act is three years of incarceration when an individual has prior convictions for possession of paraphernalia, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32), and possession of a small amount of marijuana, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(31).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “a violation of this act under this section”
    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.