2017 Pa. Super. 264 - Commonwealth v. Singleton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial court’s denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Commonwealth v. Woodard, 634 Pa. 162 , 129 A.3d 480, 498 (2015). We are bound by the suppression court’s factual findings so long as they are supported by the record; our standard of review on questions of law is de novo. Commonwealth v. Galvin, 603 Pa. 625 , 985 A.2d 783, 795 (2009).. Where, as here, the defendant is appealing the ruling of the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradict-ed. Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 634 Pa. 517 , 130 A.3d 697, 711 (2015). Our scope of review of suppression rulings includes only the suppression hearing record and excludes evidence elicited at trial. In the Interest of L.J., 622 Pa. 126 , 79 A.3d 1073, 1085 (2013).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Smith