336 Pa. Super. 569 - Ackerman v. Delcomico’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
79 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably 421 Pa. Super. 33 - Whyte v. Robinson (1992), 352 Pa. Super. 359 - Hawthorne v. Dravo Corp., Keystone Div. (1986)
79 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 Tot v. United States · Barnes v. United States · Commonwealth v. Shaffer · Commonwealth v. Bonomo · Commonwealth v. DiFrancesco
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he theory behind allowing a blood alcohol level to be admitted into evidence in a civil case is that it is relevant circumstantial evidence relating to intoxication. However, blood alcohol level alone may not be admitted for the purpose of proving intoxication. There must be other evidence showing the actor’s conduct which suggests intoxication. Only then, and if other safeguards are present, may a blood alcohol level be admitted.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“§ 1547. Chemical testing to determine amount of alcohol or controlled substance (a) General rule.—Any person who drives, operates or is in actual physical control of the movement of a motor vehicle in this Commonwealth shall be deemed to have given consent to one or more chemical tests of breath, blood or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of blood or the presence of a controlled substance if a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving, operating or in actual physical control of the movement of a motor vehicle: (1) while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance or both; or (2) which was involved in an accident in which the operator or passenger of any vehicle involved or a pedestrian required treatment at a medical facility or was killed. (c) Test results admissible in evidence.—In any summary proceeding or criminal proceeding in which the defendant is charged with a violation of section 3731 or any other violation of this title arising out of the same action, the amount of alcohol or controlled substance in the defendant’s blood, as shown by chemical testing of the person’s breath, blood or urine, which tests were conducted by qualified persons using approved equipment, shall be admissible in evidence. (d) Presumptions from amount of alcohol.—If chemical testing of a person’s breath, blood or urine shows: (1) That the amount of alcohol by weight in the blood of the person tested is 0.05% or less, ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““In the case at bar, there is evidence which could reasonably establish that appellant was intoxicated, so as to make it necessary to place before the jury the issue of whether he was so influenced by alcohol to be a ‘hazard. ’ There was corroborated testimony that appellant had been drinking heavily in the late afternoon and evening before the accident. There is also corroborated testimony that appellant had a strong odor of alcohol and slurred speech after the accident. Looking at all the evidence, there is much more than a suggestion of intoxication and, therefore, we conclude that the evidence of appellant’s intoxication was properly admitted, and was not prejudicial as determined in Morreale v. Prince, 436 Pa. 51 , 258 A.2d 508 (1969) and Vignoli v. Standard Motor Freight Inc., 418 Pa. 214 , 210 A.2d 271 (1965) (when carelessness or recklessness is at issue, mere fact of consuming alcohol not admissible, being unfairly prejudicial, unless it reasonably establishes intoxication).” Id. at 575, 486 A.2d at 413 . (emphasis added)”
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.