324 Pa. Super. 255 - Commonwealth v. Winter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellant correctly observes that principles of collateral estoppel are a part of the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy. Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). See also: Commonwealth v. Hude, 492 Pa. 600, 611-612 , 425 A.2d 313, 319 (1980). Collateral estoppel is issue preclusion. “ ‘It means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.’ ” In the Interest of R.R., 317 Pa.Super. 334, 345 , 464 A.2d 348, 354 (1983), quoting Commonwealth v. Peluso, 481 Pa. 641, 645 , 393 A.2d 344, 346-347 (1978) and Ashe v. Swenson, supra, 397 U.S. at 443 , 90 S.Ct. at 1194 , 25 L.Ed.2d at 475 . However, this Court, in Commonwealth v. Lewis, 306 Pa.Super. 81 , 452 A.2d 13 (1982) held that the doctrine of nonmutual, collateral estoppel is not applicable to criminal cases. The interest of the Commonwealth in enforcing its criminal laws, the Court held, outweighs its interest in judicial economy; and, therefore, collateral estoppel as a defense to a criminal charge is available only where prior, criminal litigation involved the same parties. See also: Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 , 100 S.Ct. 1999 , 64 L.Ed.2d 689 (1980).”

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