331 Pa. Super. 285 - Commonwealth v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably 365 Pa. Super. 332 - Commonwealth v. Lemanski (1987), State v. Vargas (2008)
68 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 Illinois v. Gates · Ker v. State of California · Miller v. United States · Sabbath v. United States · Commonwealth v. Miller
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) The following acts and the causing thereof within the Commonwealth are hereby prohibited: (30) Except as authorized by this act, the manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance by a person not registered under this act, or a practitioner not registered or licensed by the appropriate State board, or knowingly creating, delivering or possessing with intent to deliver, a counterfeit controlled substance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Where a charge to the jury adequately states the law and creates no likelihood of confusion, counsel will not be deemed ineffective in failing to oppose the charge. Commonwealth v. Rowles, 501 Pa. 514 , 462 A.2d 619 (1983). In reviewing a jury’s instruction we must look to the whole charge, and not just isolated excerpts therefrom. Commonwealth v. Waller, 322 Pa.Super. 11 , 468 A.2d 1134 (1983).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If the Commonwealth is unable to prove that a suspect had a controlled substance on [her] person, the Commonwealth may show constructive possession of illicit drugs, and such may be demonstrated by showing that a defendant had power of control over and intended to exercise such control of [the] substance.”
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.