255 Pa. Super. 78 - Commonwealth v. Lowe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “’ “[I]n the instant case there is no reflection in the record that the Commonwealth was acting in bad faith in dismissing the first complaint against appellant. Furthermore, appellant concedes that the discharge was due to the Commonwealth’s inability to produce witnesses. Therefore, we would hold, as did the lower court, that Rule 1100 ran from the filing of the second complaint.” and further “When the original charges against appellant were dismissed on October 29, 1975, the proceedings were terminated. Once the charges were dismissed, the Commonwealth was required to initiate a new prosecution against appellant, if it so chose. Because no charges were then pending against appellant, it could not be claimed that the first complaint resulted in ‘disrupting] his employment, draining] his financial resources, curtailing] his associations, subjecting] him to public obloquy . . . [or] creating] anxiety in him, his family . . . [or] his friends.’ United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 320 , 92 S.Ct. 455, 463 , 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971). Any of those potential results of being subject to criminal charges dissipated with the original complaint’s dismissal. In addition, none of the charges in the original complaint culminated in trial. Therefore, speedy trial rights which attached with the first complaint’s filing were permanently severed by appellant’s discharge.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 269 Pa. Super. 194 - Commonwealth v. Leatherbury

2. “There, the defendant was arrested and charged with murder, conspiracy and several lesser included offenses arising from the same criminal episode. At a preliminary hearing, the murder and conspiracy charges were discharged, but the defendant was continuously held on all other charges. This continuous confinement was the crucial factor in discharging the defendant, even though the murder and conspiracy charges were later refiled and the trial was commenced within 180 days of that date.”

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

3. ““In the instant case, there appears of record no objection by appellant or his counsel to the dismissal of the charges. Clearly, appellant remained subject to rearrest and new prosecution. Commonwealth v. Hetherington, 460 Pa. 17 , 331 A.2d 205 (1975); Riggins Case, 435 Pa. 321 , 254 A.2d 616 (1969).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 269 Pa. Super. 194 - Commonwealth v. Leatherbury