258 Pa. Super. 40 - Commonwealth v. Belgrave’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently July 2012 · most notably 344 Pa. Super. 108 - Commonwealth v. Williams (1985), 280 Pa. Super. 470 - Commonwealth v. Crocker (1980)
44 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Eisenstadt v. Baker · Commonwealth v. Shaffer · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Moszczynski v. Ashe · Commonwealth v. Goosby · Commonwealth v. Walker
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; (2) negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. "The test for the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, viewing all of the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and drawing all reasonable inferences favorable to the Commonwealth, there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Bastone, 466 Pa. 548, 552 , 353 A.2d 827, 829 (1976); Commonwealth v. Whitfield, 474 Pa. 27 , 376 A.2d 617 (1977). Moreover, it is axiomatic that it is within the province of the jury to pass upon the credibility of witnesses and determine the weight to be accorded the evidence adduced. Commonwealth v. Alston, 461 Pa. 664 , 337 A.2d 597 (1975); Commonwealth v. Murray, 460 Pa. 605 , 334 A.2d 255 (1975). Instantly, I entertain no doubt that Mrs. Washington's testimony was clearly sufficient to prove appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant's argument that the proof was deficient with respect to the crimes of unlawful restraint and false imprisonment because there was no evidence that the victim was forced into the abducting vehicle or restrained from leaving has no merit. Given Mrs. Washington's testimony that her husband was being assaulted in the back seat of the car by several assailants, whom he forcibly resisted, the jury could reasonably infer that the victim was being restrained against his will.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.