2011 Pa. Super. 67 - Commonwealth v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Callen · Commonwealth v. Dix

2. “[i]n cases where a concurring opinion enumerates the portions of the plurality's opinion in which the author joins or [ ]agrees, those portions of agreement gain precedential value .... [H]owever, [if] the concurrence does not explicitly state its agreement or disagreement with the plurality, we must look to the substance of the concurrence to determine the extent to which it provides precedential value to points of agreement.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. The Marcellus Shale Coalition v. DEP of PA and Environmental Quality Board of PA · 2015 Pa. Super. 267 - Lomas, R. v. Kravitz, J.

3. “A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he ... attempts to cause or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to any of the officers, agents, employees or other persons enumerated in subsection (c), in the performance of duty.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Soto · Commonwealth v. Brown