2012 Pa. Super. 127 - Commonwealth v. Gerald’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Gur task is guided by the sound and settled principles set forth in the Statutory Construction Act, including the primary maxim that the object of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a). In pursuing that end, we are mindful that “[w]hen the- words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b). Indeed, “[a]s a 'general rule, the best indication of legislative intent is the plain language of a statute.” In reading the" plain language, “[w]ords and phrases shall be construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage,” while any words or phrases'that have acquired a “peculiar and appropriate meaning” must be construed according to that meaning. 1 Pa.C.S. [§ ] 1903(a). However, when interpreting non-explicit statutory text, legislative intent may be gleaned from a variety of factors, including, inter alia: the occasion and necessity for the statute; the mischief to be remedied; the object to be attained; the consequences of a particular interpretation; and the contemporaneous legislative history. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(c). Moreover, while ■ statutes generally should be construed liberally, penal statutes are always to be construed strictly, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1928(b)(1), and any ambiguity in a pe nal statute should be interpreted in favor of the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 211 - Commonwealth v. Hanna

2. “As we have often recognized, “[t]he General Assembly’s intent is best expressed through the plain language of the statute.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 603 Pa. 31 , 981 A.2d 893, 897 (2009); Commonwealth v. McCoy, 599 Pa. 599 , 962 A.2d 1160, 1166 (2009). Therefore, when the terms of a statute are clear and unambiguous, they wilbbe given effect consistent with their plain and common meaning. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(b); Commonwealth v. Kelley, 569 Pa. 179 , 801 A.2d 551, 554 (2002). This means ascribing to the particular words and phrases the definitions which they have acquired through their common, and approved usage. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1903. It is only in instances where the words of a statute are not explicit, or they are ambiguous, is there need to resort to consideration of the factors in aid of construction enumerated in 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(c). McCoy, 962 A.2d at 1166 ; Commonwealth v. Fithian, 599 Pa. 180 , 961 A.2d 66, 74 (2008); see also 1 Pa. C.S.A. § 1921(b) (“When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter, of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 221 - Commonwealth v. Johnson

3. “A prisoner or inmate commits a felony of the second degree if he unlawfully has in his possession or under his control any controlled substance in violation of [ 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16) ].”

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