338 Pa. Super. 42 - Commonwealth v. Lore’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Commonwealth v. Yarris (1988), 452 Pa. Super. 508 - Commonwealth v. Larsen (1996)
32 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 · Braverman v. United States · Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission · Streeter v. United States · Commonwealth v. Story
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A single, continuing conspiracy is demonstrated where the evidence proves that the essential feature of the existing conspiracy was a common plan or scheme to achieve a common, single, comprehensive goal---A single, continuing conspiracy may contemplate a series of offenses, or be comprised of a series of steps in the formation of a larger, general conspiracy..... Therefore, where the evidence at trial is sufficient for the jury to infer that the essential features of the existing conspiracy were a common plan or scheme to achieve a common, single, comprehensive goal or end, then the conclusion that the conspiracy was a single, continuing conspiracy is justified.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Conspiracy with multiple criminal objectives. — If a person conspires to commit a number of crimes, he is guilty of only one conspiracy as long as such multiple crimes are the object of the same agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“First, that the defendant [harbored or concealed [item]] [provided or aided in providing [a weapon] [transportation] [disguise] [means of avoiding apprehension or effecting escape] [other provision]] [concealed or destroyed evidence of the crime] [tampered with a [witness] [informant] [document] [source of information] [other item]] [warned [name of offender] of impending discovery or apprehension] [provided false information to a law enforcement officer] [action]; Second, that the defendant did so with intent to hinder the [apprehension] [prosecution] [conviction] [punishment] of [name of offender] for the crime; [or], for violating the terms of probation, parole, intermediate punishment, or accelerated rehabilitative disposition; and [Where applicable:] Third, that the defendant knew [name of offender] [had been charged] [or] [was liable to be charged] with conduct that would constitute a felony of the first or second degree. It is not necessary that the defendant knew the conduct would constitute a felony. It is sufficient if the defendant knew that [name of offender] [had been charged] [or] [was liable to be charged] with certain conduct as long as such conduct, regardless of whether the defendant knew it or not, would actually amount to a felony of the first or second degree. I instruct you that the following conduct would amount to a felony of the [first] [second] degree. [2. As I told you, you cannot find the defendant guilty unless you find that [he] [she] had the int”
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.