277 Pa. Super. 27 - Commonwealth v. Arizini’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

59 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The statute does not require that a person be drunk, or intoxicated, or unable to drive his automobile safely in traffic, but merely that the Commonwealth prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was operating his automobile under the influence of intoxicating liquor---The statutory expression “under the influence of intoxi eating liquor” includes not only all the well known and easily recognized conditions and degrees of intoxication, but also any mental or physical condition which is the result of drinking alcoholic beverages and (a) which makes one unfit to drive an automobile, or (b) which substantially impairs his judgment, or clearness of intellect, or any of the normal faculties essential to the safe operation of an automobile,”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Griscavage · 336 Pa. Super. 141 - Commonwealth v. Griscavage

2. “The test in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a jury verdict ‘is whether, viewing all of the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom, is it sufficient to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt?’ Commonwealth v. Cristina, 481 Pa. 44 , 391 A.2d 1307, 1309 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 925 , 99 S.Ct. 1255 , 59 L.Ed.2d 479 (1979). Our inquiry is bound by two poles. While the Commonwealth does not have to establish guilt to a mathematical certainty and may in a proper case rely wholly on circumstantial evidence, a conviction may not be based on mere conjecture or surmise. Commonwealth v. Madison, 263 Pa.Super. 206 , 397 A.2d 818 (1979); Commonwealth v. Navarro, 251 Pa.Su per. 125, 380 A.2d 409 (1977). Applying this test here we find the evidence sufficient.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 304 Pa. Super. 327 - Commonwealth v. Devereaux

3. “thusly: The statute does not require that a person be drunk, or intoxicated, or unable to drive his automobile safely in traffic, but merely that the Commonwealth prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was operating his automobile under the influence of intoxicating liquor . . . The statutory expression”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Griscavage