2011 Pa. Super. 57 - Commonwealth v. Shawver’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “All properly enacted statutes enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality. Commonwealth v. Bullock , 590 Pa. 480 , 913 A.2d 207 , 211 (2006), cert. denied , 550 U.S. 941 , 127 S.Ct. 2262 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1103 (2007) ; In re C.C.J. , 799 A.2d 116 (Pa. Super. 2002). Accordingly, a statute will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution. All doubts are to be resolved in favor of finding that the legislative enactment passes constitutional muster. Thus, there is a very heavy burden of persuasion upon one who challenges the constitutionality of a statute. Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al. , 877 A.2d 383 , 393 (Pa. 2005) (internal citations omitted). Appellate review of constitutional challenges to statutes, disputes over the legality of a sentence, a court's application of a statute, and general questions of law involve a plenary scope of review. Commonwealth v. McCoy , 895 A.2d 18 , 24 (Pa. Super. 2006), affirmed , 601 Pa. 540 , 975 A.2d 586 (2009). "As with all questions of law, the appellate standard of review is de novo ...." In re Wilson , 879 A.2d 199 , 214 (Pa. Super. 2005) ( en banc ).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 50 - Commonwealth v. Colon-Plaza · Commonwealth v. Beish

2. “Equal protection analysis recognizes three types of governmental classification, each of which calls for a different standard of scrutiny. The appropriate standard...is determined by examining the nature of the classification and the rights thereby affected. In the first type of case, where the classification relates to who may exercise a fundamental right or is based on a suspect trait such as race or national origin, strict scrutiny is required. When strict scrutiny is employed, a classification will be invalid unless it is found to be necessary to the achievement of a compelling state interest. The second type of case involves a classification which, although not suspect, is either sensitive or important but not fundamental. Such a classification must serve an important governmental interest and be substantially related to the achievement of that objective. The third type of situation involves classifications which are neither suspect nor sensitive or rights which are neither fundamental nor important. Such classifications will be valid as long as they are rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.”

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

3. “§ 3804. Penalties (b) High rate of blood alcohol; minors; commercial vehicles and school buses and school vehicles; accidents. — Except as set forth in subsection (c), an individual who violates section 3802(a)(1) where there was an accident resulting in bodily injury, serious bodily injury or death of any person or damage to a vehicle or other property or who violates section 3802(b), (e) or (f) shall be sentenced as follows: (1) For a first offense, to: (i) undergo imprisonment of not less than 48 consecutive hours; (ii) pay a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000; (iii) attend an alcohol highway safety school approved by the department; and (iv) comply with all drug and alcohol treatment requirements imposed under sections 3814 and 3815. (2) For a second offense, to: (i) undergo imprisonment of not less than 30 days; (ii) pay a fine of not less than $750 nor more than $5,000; (iii) attend an alcohol highway safety school approved by the department; and (iv) comply with all drug and alcohol treatment requirements imposed under sections 3814 and 3815.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2011 Pa. Super. 135 - Commonwealth v. Bowers