310 Pa. Super. 105 - Commonwealth v. Laing’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably 315 Pa. Super. 281 - Commonwealth v. Ford (1983), Commonwealth v. Comer (1998)
40 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 Commonwealth v. Bolden · Commonwealth v. Zapata · 290 Pa. Super. 182 - Commonwealth v. Barnhart · Commonwealth v. Nelson · 270 Pa. Super. 501 - Commonwealth v. Hess
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It goes almost without saying that an accused may be charged, tried and found guilty of several offenses but one criminal act. Indeed, ‘prosecutors generally offer the jury a smorgasbord of offenses.’ Commonwealth v. Artis, 294 Pa.Super. 276, 282 , 439 A.2d 1199, 1201 (1982). However, it is equally well established that ‘the imposition of two sentences under the guise of two offenses, where only one act was the basis for charge and sentence, is unlawful____’ Id., 294 Pa.Superior Ct. at 281, 439 A.2d at 1201 (emphasis added). The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy not only bars successive prosecutions for a single criminal act, but it also forbids multiple punishments for the same offense. Commonwealth v. Bolden, 472 Pa. 602, 618 , 373 A.2d 90, 97-98 (1977). So also, the doctrine of merger ‘ “prevents double punishment for a lesser offense when it is a necessary ingredient of the greater offense for which the defendant has also been indicted convicted and punished” ’ Commonwealth v. Cavanaugh, 278 Pa.Super. 542, 545-546 , 420 A.2d 674, 675-676 (1980) quoting Commonwealth v. Nelson, 452 Pa. 275, 280 , 305 A.2d 369 371 (1973) (Nix, J., concurring and dissenting).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Appellant’s second claim is that a new trial should have been awarded because the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Such a determination is generally committed to the discretion of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Zapata, 447 Pa. 322, 327 , 290 A.2d 114, 117 (1972); Commonwealth v. Starks, 298 Pa.Super. 213, 215 , 444 A.2d 736, 738 (1982); Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 291 Pa.Super. 239 , 243 n. 3, 435 A.2d 888 , 890 n. 3 (1981); Commonwealth v. Larew, 289 Pa.Super. 34, 37 , 432 A.2d 1037, 1038 (1981). A court will grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence only where it ‘appear[s] from the record that the jury’s verdict was so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice and to make the award of a new trial imperative, so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail.’ Commonwealth v. Barnhart, 290 Pa.Super. 182, 185 , 434 A.2d 191, 192 (1981).”
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.