325 Pa. Super. 242 - Commonwealth v. Berrigan’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2155 · 42 U.S.C. § 2011 (Atomic Energy Act of 1954)
Relies on Washington v. Texas · Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission · Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California Riverside County · United States v. Bailey · Silkwood v. Corporation
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Commonwealth v. Capitolo, [324] Pa.Super. [61], 471 A.2d 462 (1984), we held that the appellants who had tried to prove justification in defense of charges of trespass on the grounds of a nuclear power plant, were required to meet the requirements of Section 510. We so hold in the instant case in which appellant’s conduct involves damage to, intrusion on or interference with property. In Capitolo, supra, 324 Pa.Superior Ct. at 61, 471 A.2d 462 , we explained that because “Section 503 contains a general principle applicable to all crimes ... it must yield to more specific formulations dealing with the particular situation posed in any concrete case.” (citing Model Penal Code, Scope of Article 3, at 1). We therefore concluded that to the extent Sections 503 and 510 are consistent, the requirements of both must be met by defendants seeking to prove justification.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“... I feel that to make a documentary of such an insignificant situation will make heroes of immature and intransigent people, enhancing their status and importance.”
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.