336 Pa. Super. 120 - Commonwealth v. Whiteman’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Commonwealth v. Widmer (2000), 408 Pa. Super. 435 - Commonwealth v. Murray (1991)
56 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 Hudson v. Louisiana · Commonwealth v. Blair · Commonwealth v. Gravely · 324 Pa. Super. 420 - Commonwealth v. Taylor · Commonwealth v. Meadows
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence presented and all reasonable inferences taken therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as verdict winner. The test is whether the evidence, thus viewed, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt____”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Offense defined. — A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; (2) makes unreasonable noise; (3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or (4) creates a hazardous orphysically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“... inadequate to preserve any issues for appellate review. Post-verdict motions now must allege in what particular respect(s) the evidence was insufficient to prove the elements of the crime(s), or in what particular respect(s) the weight of the evidence was such that the verdict should be overturned and a new trial granted.”
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.