2009 Pa. Super. 193 - Commonwealth v. Grimes’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki · Houston v. Canon Bowl, Inc. · Commonwealth v. Capitolo · 1999 Pa. Super. 344 - Buckley v. Exodus Transit & Storage Corp. · 2003 Pa. Super. 57 - Commonwealth v. McNabb
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When reviewing a challenge to a jury charge, we must examine the trial court’s instruction in its entirety, against the background of all evidence presented, to determine whether error was committed. A jury charge is erroneous if the charge as a whole is inadequate, unclear, or has a tendency to mislead or confuse the jury rather than clarify a material issue. Therefore, a charge will be found adequate unless the issues are not made clear to the jury or the jury was palpably misled by what the trial judge said.”
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.