339 Pa. Super. 242 - Commonwealth v. Rivera’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
April 1987
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Archambault · Commonwealth v. Bennett · 261 Pa. Super. 109 - Commonwealth v. Trowbridge · Commonwealth v. Whitfield · 289 Pa. Super. 531 - Commonwealth v. Rozanski
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I have told you that you are the sole judges of the facts in the case. That’s why I have been a little reluctant to tell you this up until this point but obviously you’re dealing with something that I feel in all fairness I must explain. There is no evidence in this case that could substantiate a finding of guilty of count 3. The elements of that offense require the taking of property from the person of another. The section was added by the legislature in 1976, and it really covers purse snatching. There is no evidence in this case that anybody took anything from the person of either Miss Jacoby or the other lady. However,; if you disagree with my recitation of facts and if you find that there is evidence, and I again tell you that your finding of the facts is what governs and not mine.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.