275 Pa. Super. 5 - Commonwealth v. Chatman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This informant has given information in the past which led to the arrest of Curtis Williams and Earl Montel.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 311 Pa. Super. 146 - Commonwealth v. White · Commonwealth v. Manuel

2. “It would be meaningful to tell the magistrate when the information had been furnished. It would be meaningful to tell the magistrate whether, as a result of the arrests, evidence was turned up which the informant indicated would be turned up. It would be meaningful to tell the magistrate whether the information from the informant was the exclusive predicate for the arrests, or whether it was but a minor contributing factor considered along with many other factors. It would be meaningful to tell the magistrate whether those earlier arrests had ever been ruled upon, in terms of their legality and in terms of the adequacy of the probable cause upon which they were based. If the informant was, indeed, deemed credible for purposes of those earlier arrests, why not furnish the magistrate now the supporting facts which made the informant credible then? That data would be unquestionably relevant on the issue of current credibility. It would be meaningful to tell the magistrate whether the informant had always furnished good information or not. Moylan, supra note 4 at 758-59. (citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 308 Pa. Super. 187 - Commonwealth v. Prosdocimo

3. “(t)he mere statement that the police decided to arrest because of what this informant said on a prior occasion does not indicate whether that decision was lawful or whether anything learned incident to or following the arrest verified what the informant had said.”

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