280 Pa. Super. 20 - Commonwealth v. Benson’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
79 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2008 · most notably Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990), Lamp v. Heyman (1976)
79 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. Wade · Schmerber v. State of California · Commonwealth v. Clair · Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus · 230 Pa. Super. 563 - Commonwealth v. Kloch
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The test for the occurrence of an arrest has often been defined as the happening of any act that indicates an intention to take the individual into custody and subjects him to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest. Commonwealth v. Farley, 468 Pa. 487 , 364 A.2d 299 (1976); Commonwealth v. Allessie, 267 Pa.Super. 334 , 406 A.2d 1068 (1979). An arrest may thus be effectuated without the actual use of force and without a formal statement of arrest. Commonwealth v. Daniels, 455 Pa. 552 , 317 A.2d 237 (1974). The question is viewed in light of the reasonable impression conveyed to the person subjected to the seizure rather than in terms of the subjective view of the police officer. Commonwealth v. Holmes, 482 Pa. 97 , 393 A.2d 397 (1978); Commonwealth v. Richards, 458 Pa. 455 , 327 A.2d 63 (1974).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'requesting a driver, suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, to perform physical tests or take a breath analysis does not violate [his] privilege against self-incrimination because [the] evidence procured is of a physical nature rather than testimonial, and therefore no Miranda warnings are required.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“So long as approval of the type of equipment by the Department of Health occurs before trial, although this may be after the time of testing, the evidence will be admissible under the implied consent law because the quality of the results is not vitiated by subsequent approval of the type of equipment.”
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.