2007 Pa. Super. 226 - Commonwealth v. Brumbaugh’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 2023
15 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 2001 Pa. Super. 238 - Commonwealth v. DiStefano · 2003 Pa. Super. 194 - Commonwealth v. Ashton · 2002 Pa. Super. 145 - Commonwealth v. Kolansky · 2005 Pa. Super. 139 - Commonwealth v. Haigh · 2005 Pa. Super. 332 - Commonwealth v. Padilla
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our standard of review in assessing whether sufficient evidence was present ed to sustain Appellant’s conviction is well-settled. The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying [this] test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. The court's order or decree must be definite, clear, specific and leave no doubt or uncertainty in the mind of the person to whom it was addressed of the conduct prohibited; 2. The contemnor must have had notice of the specific order or decree; 3. The act constituting the violation must have been volitional; and 4. The contemnor must have acted with wrongful intent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Wrongful intent can be imputed by virtue of the substantial certainty that by choosing to accept the victim's invitation to travel with her in the same vehicle to a party, he would be in contact with her in violation of the PFA Order.”
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.