267 Pa. Super. 247 - Cusatis v. Reichert’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably 421 Pa. Super. 33 - Whyte v. Robinson (1992), 352 Pa. Super. 359 - Hawthorne v. Dravo Corp., Keystone Div. (1986)
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 55 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 Fisher v. Dye · Hurtt v. Stirone · Critzer Et Ux. v. Donovan · BILLOW v. Farmers Trust Co. · Morreale v. Prince
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he well-settled law of this Commonwealth is that where recklessness or carelessness is at issue, proof of intoxication is at issue, proof of intoxication is relevant, but the mere fact of consuming alcohol is inadmissible as unfairly prejudicial, unless it reasonably establishes intoxication.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“falls short of the requirement that the evidence show ‘a degree of intoxication which proves unfitness to drive.’ ” Id. at 93. • Pennsylvania courts have indicated that something more than a”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 138 - Crews v. Seven Springs Mountain Resort · Rovegno, Alice J., Individually and as of the Estate of Rovegno, Marshall, Deceased, in No. 80-2512 v. Geppert Brothers, Inc., and Ward, Lewis J. Rovegno, Alice J., Individually and as of the Estate of Rovegno, Marshall, Deceased v. Geppert Brothers, Inc., and Ward, Lewis J., in No. 80-2513“The offer of proof included testimony that Reichert had a blood alcohol content of .14 approximately one hour after the accident. Our legislature has expressly approved the blood alcohol test as a means of determining whether a person is driving under the influence of intoxicating beverages. Indeed, a blood alcohol content of .10 percent or more of weight raises a presumption of intoxication. 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(d)(3). While it is true that the supreme court in Billow , when confronted with a defendant having this same amount of blood alcohol-.14-ruled the testimony inadmissible, it is crucial to note that the breathalyzer result was there the sole evidence presented to support an inference of intoxication. Such a reading on a breathalyzer might be caused by legitimate medication or chemical substances. Instantly, however, appellants also proffered testimony that Reichert had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol prior to the incident, and had the odor of alcohol about him when the investigating officer arrived at the scene. Taken in its totality, this evidence reveals far more than the mere hint of intoxication condemned as prejudicial in Morreale [v. Prince, supra ] and Vignoli [v. Standard Motor Freight, Inc., 418 Pa. 214 , 210 A.2d 271 (1965)]. As evidence presented could reasonably support a conclusion that Reichert was intoxicated, the question should have been placed before the jury.”
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.