2011 Pa. Super. 33 - Commonwealth v. Xander’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Com., Dept. of Transp. v. O'CONNELL · Swords v. Harleysville Insurance Companies · Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Weaver · 2008 Pa. Super. 82 - Commonwealth v. Hutchinson · 2010 Pa. Super. 42 - Commonwealth v. Arroyo
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the General Assembly specifically included a requirement in § 1547(b)(2)(h) that the police warn arrestees of the enhanced penalties for a refusal [of chemical testing. Therefore,] a “refusal” for purposes of § 3804(c) necessarily requires a knowing refusal insofar as the police must have provided the arrestee with the warnings beforehand. [[Image here]] [The arresting officer] was required to provide [the defendant] with § 1547(b) warnings before [the defendant] could receive the enhanced penalties for DUI pursuant to § 3804(c).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[The appellee] was noncompliant, yelling derogatory remarks at [the arresting officer], and kicking and punching the partition in the police cruiser. As a result, [the officer] radioed the DUI Center to warn them that he would need assistance with [the appellee] upon arrival. [A back-up officer met the arresting officer] in the garage and both officers attempted to remove [the appellee] from the vehicle. [The appellee] began kicking and flailing her legs and, as a result, struck [the back-up officer] with the police cruiser door. Unable to control [the appellee], [the arresting officer] tased her with the drive stun function of his taser device. [The appellee] calmed down and the officers were able to get [the appellee] inside the building to the processing center. A DVD recording of [the appellee’s] interaction with [the back-up officer] and the phlebotomist was presented at trial as a Commonwealth exhibit. The video and audio recording shows [the appellee] repeatedly asking for her “attorney rights” and informing [the back-up officer] and the phlebotomist that she will not answer any questions. [The back-up officer] attempts to explain to [the ap-pellee] that she does not have the right to an attorney during processing, as they are not asking guilt-seeking questions, and are only attempting to book her and conduct a blood draw. [The appellee informs the back-up officer] and the phlebotomist that “you ain’t f* * *ing taking no blood test on me.” Throughout the video recordin”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Incapacity; highest blood alcohol; controlled substances. — An individual who violates section 3802(a)(1) and refused testing of blood or breath ... shall be sentenced as follows: (3) for a third or subsequent offense, to: (i) undergo imprisonment of not less than one year; (ii) pay a fine of not less than $2,500; and (iii) comply with all drug and alcohol treatment requirements under sections 3814 and 3815.”
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.