2008 Pa. Super. 137 - Commonwealth v. Zampier’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 2025
5 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 Poola v. UNEMP. COMP. BD. OF REVIEW · 2002 Pa. Super. 203 - Commonwealth v. Griffin · 366 Pa. Super. 54 - Commonwealth v. Becker · Reading School Dist. v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUC. · Commonwealth v. Dinola
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.
“[The] appellant was actually expelled from the ARD program and pled guilty to his 1996 offense. Thereafter he was sentenced accordingly before he committed the most recent DUI. Thus, unlike the situation in Becker , there was an actual conviction to be accounted for within the ten year look-back period— not just the possibility of expulsion and/or acquittal. Herein, it is as if appellant had not participated in the ARD program once he was expelled and later pled guilty to the 1995 infraction. He was sentenced for his prior DUI offense, and the court need only look to his prior conviction rather than his ARD participation to trigger the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence. The plain language of the statute mandates that acceptance of ARD constitutes the equivalent of a conviction for purposes of determining whether a person would be designated a habitual offender. Herein, we need not look to the equivalent as appellant has an actual conviction within the ten year look back period.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Becker, like appellant, accepted ARD in relation to his first DUI offense. However, within one week after acceptance into ARD, Becker was again arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. He pleaded guilty to the most recent offense and, as a consequence, faced possible expulsion from the ARD program and could have been forced to stand trial in connection with the first incident.”
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.