329 Pa. Super. 69 - Commonwealth v. Anderl’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 2009 · most notably Com., Dept. of Transp. v. McFarren (1987), 353 Pa. Super. 258 - Commonwealth v. Speights (1986)
36 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Katz v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · Schmerber v. State of California · South Dakota v. Opperman
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘Abandonment is primarily a question of intent, and intent may be inferred from words spoken, acts done, and other objective facts. United States v. Cowan, 2d Cir. 1968, 396 F.2d 83, 87 . All relevant circumstances existing at the time of the alleged abandonment should be considered. United States v. Manning, 5th Cir.1971, 440 F.2d 1105, 1111 . Police pursuit or the existence of a police investigation does not of itself render abandonment involuntary. See Abel v. United States, supra [ 362 U.S. 217 , 80 S.Ct. 683 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960)]; United States v. Edwards, 5th Cir.1971, 441 F.2d 749 ; Lurie v. Oberhauser, 9th Cir.1970, 431 F.2d 330 .’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The hearing judge must be convinced that the police intrusion into the automobile was for the purpose of taking an inventory of the car and not for the purpose of gathering incriminating evidence. The facts and circumstances which must be considered by the hearing judge are the scope of the search, the procedure utilized in the search, whether any items of value were in plain view, the reasons and nature of the custody; the anticipated length of custody, and any other factors which the court deems important in its determination. If, after weighing all the facts and circumstances, the court is of the opinion that it was an inventory search of an automobile lawfully in police custody, then any evidence seized as a result of this reasonable inventory is admissible. If on the other hand, the Commonwealth has not shown that the search was part of the police caretaking function, the probable cause-warrant standard must be used for determining reasonableness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“An appellate court is bound by the factual findings of the suppression court if they have support in the record. Commonwealth v. Hall, 475 Pa. 482, 380 A.2d 1238 (1977); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 467 Pa. 146 , 354 A.2d 886 (1976); Commonwealth v. Iannaccio, 304 Pa. Super. 307 , 450 A.2d 694 (1982). However, the suppression court’s order may be reversed if the legal conclusions drawn from the factual findings are in error, Commonwealth v. Jackson, 497 Pa. 591 , 442 A.2d 1098 (1982); Commonwealth v. Hall, supra.”
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.