Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 333 Pa. Super. 323 - Commonwealth v. Paschall

333 Pa. Super. 323 - Commonwealth v. Paschall’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
February 2001
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2001

12 state decisions

60198419902000decided

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 Commonwealth v. Roscioli · Commonwealth v. Cimaszewski · Commonwealth v. Stanley · Commonwealth v. Goodman · Commonwealth v. Meredith

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.

  1. “[i]n assessing appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim, we are mindful that the Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proof by means of wholly circumstantial evidence, which, of necessity, draws into play the affixing of a line of demarcation between the requisite degree of persuasion (“beyond a reasonable doubt”) and impermissible speculation. The former is required while the latter is not tolerated as the basis for a conviction. Thus, in the Commonwealth’s efforts to establish guilt predicated upon circumstantial evidence, it must be kept in mind that “[t]he inferred fact must flow, beyond a reasonable doubt, from the proven fact where the inferred fact is relied upon to establish the guilt of the accused or the existence of one of [the] elements of the offense.””
    2 later decisions 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.