2011 Pa. Super. 84 - Commonwealth v. Coleman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An appellant convicted in Philadelphia’s Municipal Court has two appellate options. Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1006(l)(a) provides that a defendant convicted in Philadelphia' Municipal Court has the right to request either a trial de novo or file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. This Court has held that when a defendant files a petition for a writ of certiorari, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas sits as an appellate court. Commonwealth v. Coleman, 19 A.3d 1111 , 1118—[11]19 (Pa.Super.2011) (citations omitted). “A trial de novo gives the defendant a new trial without reference to the Municipal Court record; a petition for writ of certiorari asks the Common Pleas Court to review the record made in the Municipal Court.” [ Menezes, supra at 207 n. 2].”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 216 - Commonwealth v. Williams · 2016 Pa. Super. 102 - Commonwealth v. Lancit

2. “To guide the crucial inquiry as to whether or not a seizure has been effected, the United States Supreme Court has devised an objective test entailing a determination of whether, in view of all surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed that he was free to leave. In evaluating the circumstances, the focus is directed toward whether, by means of physical force or show of authority, the citizen-subject’s movement has in some way been restrained. In making this determination, courts must apply the totality-of-the-circumstances approach, with no single factor dictating the ultimate conclusion as to whether a seizure has occurred.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2012 Pa. Super. 118 - Commonwealth v. McAdoo · Commonwealth v. Thomas

3. “The evidence established at trial need not preclude every possibility of innocence and the fact-finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented. It is not within the province of this Court to re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. The Commonwealth’s burden may be met by wholly circumstantial evidence and any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is to be resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 118 - Commonwealth v. Toritto · 2011 Pa. Super. 261 - Commonwealth v. Stokes