2017 Pa. Super. 276 - Commonwealth v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on McKnight v. Commonwealth · Kelly v. Philadelphia · REDEVELOP. AUTH., PHILA. v. Lieberman · 268 Pa. Super. 536 - Commonwealth v. Hughes · Stokes v. Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County
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.
“Every statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions. We presume the legislature did not intend a result that is absurd, impossible, or unreasonable, and that it intends the entire statute to be effective and certain. When evaluating the interplay of several statutory provisions, we recognize that statutes that relate to the same class of persons are in pari materia and should be construed together, if possible, as one statute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(b) Exceptions.—The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to: (1) Constables, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens, or their deputies, policemen of this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions, or other law-enforcement officers. [[Image here]] (6) Agents, messengers and other employees of common carriers, banks, or business firms, whose duties require them to protect moneys, valuables and other property in the discharge of such duties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.