284 Pa. Super. 327 - Commonwealth v. Linder’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably 321 Pa. Super. 457 - Commonwealth v. Sample (1983), 322 Pa. Super. 517 - Commonwealth v. Derrick (1983)
30 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 Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · Thornhill v. Alabama · United States v. Harriss
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 3922 of the Crimes Code clearly gives a person of ordinary intelligence notice that it is unlawful for that person to intentionally create a false impression in the mind of another and then use the other person’s reliance on the false impression to obtain someone else’s property. This statute does not penalize a person for what is in his mind, as appellant argues, but rather it punishes a person for his actions in creating the false impression and thereby obtaining another’s property.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Offense defined. — A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally obtains or withholds property of another by deception. A person deceives if he intentionally: (1) creates or reinforces a false impression, including false impressions as to law, value, intention or other state of mind; but deception as to a person’s intention to perform a promise shall not be inferred from the fact alone that he did not subsequently perform the promise; (b) Exception. — The term “deceive” does not, however, include falsity as to matters having no pecuniary significance, or puffing by statements unlikely to deceive ordinary persons in the group addressed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sailors““fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute.” United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 [ 74 S. Ct. 808 , 98 L. Ed. 989 (1954)], and because it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 [ 60 S. Ct. 736 , 84 L. Ed. 1093 (1940)]; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 [ 57 S. Ct. 732 , 81 L. Ed. 1066 (1937)].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sailors
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.