279 Pa. Super. 18 - Commonwealth v. Shaffer’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably 379 Pa. Super. 313 - McCain v. Pennbank (1988), 336 Pa. Super. 394 - Commonwealth v. Maute (1984)
4 federal appellate · 38 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 United States v. Southwestern Cable Co. · Commonwealth v. Carter · Commonwealth v. Simmons · United States v. Carbone · Commonwealth v. Strand
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n acquittal cannot be interpreted as a specific finding in relation to some of the evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“intended to embrace the offenses heretofore known as larceny, embezzlement, false pretense, extortion, blackmail, fraudulent conversion, receiving stolen property, and the like. It is intended by this subsection and this article to eliminate the technical distinctions between larceny, fraudulent conversion, etc. The basic philosophy adopted is that if a person takes something which does not belong to him, this constitutes theft. It is contemplated that the indictment will state the facts justifying the conclusion that a theft was committed. Toll, Pennsylvania Crimes Code Annot. § 3902 at 420 (1974), reprinting the Comment of the Joint State Gov’t Comm’n (1967).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Consolidation of receiving with other forms of theft affords the same advantages as other aspects of the unification of the theft concept. It reduces the opportunity for technical defenses based upon legal distinctions between the closely related activities of stealing and receiving what is stolen. One who is found in possession of recently stolen goods may be either the thief or the receiver; but if the prosecution can prove the requisite thieving state of mind it makes little difference whether the jury infers that the defendant took directly from the owner or acquired from the thief. Model Penal Code, Tent. Draft. No. 2, § 206.8, Comment 1.”
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.