2011 Pa. Super. 218 - Commonwealth v. Kendricks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the evidence offered to support the verdict is in contradiction to the physical facts, in contravention to human experience and the laws of nature, then the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law. When reviewing a sufficiency claim the court is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 118 - Commonwealth v. Toritto

2. “[b]odily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Patterson

3. “show-up identification was unduly suggestive, there is no independent basis for an in-court identification, and the trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion to suppress.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Milburn