282 Pa. Super. 406 - Commonwealth v. Levenson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the failure of the District Attorney to sign an information, renders it void, not merely voidable.. . When the vehicle for initiating a criminal trial (i.e., the information) is unsigned, it is not at all apparent that a reasoned evaluation of the advisability of instituting a criminal trial has been made. . .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 285 Pa. Super. 594 - Commonwealth v. Emanuel · 303 Pa. Super. 14 - Commonwealth v. Brinton

2. “"It may be said, once for all, that the maxim is in itself worthless; —first, in point of validity, because in one form it merely contains in loose fashion a kernel of truth which no one needs to be told, and in the others it is absolutely false as a maxim of life; and secondly, in point of utility, because it merely tells the jury what they may do in any event, not what they must do or must not do, and therefore it is a superfluous form of words. It is also in practice pernicious, first, because there is frequently a misunderstanding of its proper force, and secondly, because it has become in the hands of many counsel a mere instrument for obtaining new trials upon points wholly unimportant in themselves.” (Emphasis supplied).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 323 Pa. Super. 512 - Commonwealth v. Williams · 353 Pa. Super. 571 - Burns v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co.

3. “Appellant does not dispute the representation in the Commonwealth’s brief that “C.G.C.” are the initials of Chris G. Copetas, First Assistant District Attorney of Allegheny County, who signed the information as the district attorney’s designee. Nor has appellant argued that the district attorney failed to execute and file with the clerk of courts a written designation authorizing Copetas to act for him. We reject appellant’s argument that the information is void because Copetas failed to sign his full name on the information. In the absence of a specific requirement as to the manner of signing the information, we believe that the signature need not be made in any manner so long as it is subject to identification.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 290 Pa. Super. 202 - Commonwealth v. Dupree