2013 Pa. Super. 141 - Commonwealth v. Riding’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 294 Pa.Super. 57 , 439 A.2d 748, 751 (1982); and Commonwealth v. Eackles, 286 Pa.Super. 146 , 428 A.2d 614, 618 (1981), which both define fraud as being “a false representation of a material matter made with knowledge of its falsity and with the intent to deceive.” Id. This definition does not include the element of detriment. In Hawkins , the underlying crime was theft by unlawful taking and because there was no requirement to prove a false representation to convict on that charge, the fraud extension did not apply. In Eackles , the underlying crime was receiving stolen property. Again, there was no requirement to prove a false representation to prove the crime, so the exception was irrelevant. However, here, the crime specifically includes making a false representation. For purposes of this appeal, [the appellant] admits there was a false statement knowingly made with the intent to. deceive. Therefore the definition of fraud as relied upon in Hawkins and Eackles has been established.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 43 - Cigna v. Exec. Risk Indemnity and Nutmeg Ins.