299 Pa. Super. 529 - Commonwealth v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Initially, we observe that Section 2709(3) specifically proscribes “a course of conduct or repeated [ ] ... acts” which are offensive to the complaining party, i.e., there must be evidence of a repetition of the offensive conduct. Commonwealth v. Duncan, 239 Pa.Super. 539 , 363 A.2d 803 (1976) (appellant’s repeated entreaties of the com plainant to allow him to perform cunnilingus established a “course of conduct,” and his pleas and actions seriously annoyed a person of average sensibilities). In interpreting the aforegoing, this Court, in Commonwealth v. Schnabel, 236 Pa.Super. 280 , 344 A.2d 896 (1975), held that the Commonwealth failed to establish that appellant-lessor engaged in a “course of conduct” of harassment by the single act of cutting the complainant-lessee’s water hose. In so doing, it is important to note that the Schnabel Court embraced the definition that “ ‘ “course of conduct” is more than an isolated verbal or physical act. It is a pattern of conduct composed of same or similar acts repeated over a period of time, however short, which establishes a continuity of purpose in the mind of the actor.’ ” (Citation omitted) Id. at 283 , 344 A.2d at 898 . Such definition undermines the appellant’s contention that the reviewing court is precluded from examining the testimony elicited regarding matters that occurred prior to August 5, 1975, the date of the complained of conduct.”

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

2. ““It is well-settled law that the sentence imposed upon a convicted defendant is within the broad discretion of the sentencing judge. The sentencing judge must, however, comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 1405, with the standards of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b), with the factors in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9725, and also with the requirements of Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115 , 377 A.2d 140 (1977), giving reasons on the record for his choice of sentence....””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 323 Pa. Super. 260 - Commonwealth v. Henry

3. ““A person commits a summary offense when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person: . . . (3) he engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 44 Pa. D. & C.3d 211 - Commonwealth v. Small & Wiley