305 Pa. Super. 516 - Commonwealth v. Parker’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Commonwealth v. Rawles (1983), 442 Pa. Super. 490 - Commonwealth v. Feathers (1995)
47 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. Wilson · Sanabria v. United States · Commonwealth v. Meadows · United States v. Morrison · Commonwealth v. Melton
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A trial judge has no more authority over a verdict in a non-juiy trial than he does over a jury verdict. Commonwealth v. Meadows, 471 Pa. 201, 205 , 369 A.2d 1266 , 1268 n. 5 (1977); Commonwealth v. Brown, supra [ 192 Pa.Super. 498 , 162 A.2d 13 (1960)]; See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 359 Pa. 287 , 59 A.2d 128 (1948); Pa.R.Crim.P. 1102(a). As we have stated, the authority of a trial judge following the recording of a verdict in a non-jury trial is limited to consideration of post-verdict motions in arrest of judgment or the granting of a new trial. Commonwealth v. Meadows, supra; Commonwealth v. Brown, supra. The standard of review for the trial court as it passes upon a motion in arrest of judgment, is limited to a determination of the absence or presence of that quantum of evidence necessary to establish the elements of the crime. Commonwealth v. Meadows, supra 471 Pa. at 208 , 369 A.2d at 1269 ; Commonwealth v. Slout, 288 Pa.Super. 471 , 432 A.2d 609 (1981); Commonwealth v. Ponder, 260 Pa.Super. 225 , 393 A.2d 1235 (1978). Had defendant moved for an arrest of judgment, the trial court would have been required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner and could not have altered the verdicts based upon a redetermination of credibility or a re-evaluation of the evidence. See Commonwealth v. Meadows, supra; Commonwealth v. Slout, 288 Pa.Super. 471 , 432 A.2d 609 (1981); Commonwealth v. D'Angelo, 282 Pa.Super. 1 , 422 A.2d 645 (1980); ”
2 later decisions 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.