Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 323 Pa. Super. 499 - Commonwealth v. Kimble

323 Pa. Super. 499 - Commonwealth v. Kimble’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
June 1996
most recently cited

14 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005)

Relies on 281 Pa. Super. 505 - Commonwealth v. Boerner · 282 Pa. Super. 100 - Commonwealth v. Bidner · 306 Pa. Super. 396 - Commonwealth v. Veneri · 285 Pa. Super. 594 - Commonwealth v. Emanuel · Commonwealth v. Emanuel

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

  1. “We agree with the conclusion reached by the lower court that a charge which would direct the jury to acquit appellant, should it conclude that appellant acted in good faith in refusing to remit sales tax monies to the Commonwealth, was not proper in the case at bar since the criminal statute in question, 72 P.S. § 7268, does not provide for such a ‘good faith’ defense. We regard the fact that 72 P.S. § 7269 does provide for a limited good faith defense in a limited civil context, coupled with the fact that the preceding criminal section presently subject to our scrutiny (Section 7268) is totally barren of such ameliorative language, are reflective of a conscious election by our legislature to limit the application of a good faith defense to civil tax litigation. Section 7268 requires that a violation of its provisions be ‘willful.’ Insofar as the lower court correctly charged the jury concerning the necessity of a willful failure to remit tax monies as grounds for appellant’s conviction, we reject appellant’s contention that the court below usurped the function of the jury by removing from its consideration the possible good faith of appellant as it may have impacted upon the willfulness and voluntariness of appellant’s behavior.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and (ii) if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.”
    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.