360 Pa. Super. 481 - Commonwealth v. Monosky’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
18 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. O'SEARO · 315 Pa. Super. 256 - Commonwealth v. Holmes · 256 Pa. Super. 259 - Commonwealth v. Reynolds · 336 Pa. Super. 120 - Commonwealth v. Whiteman · 316 Pa. Super. 381 - Commonwealth v. Cardona
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The sole basis for issuance of the citation was the defendant’s act of traveling 41 mph in a posted 25-mph zone. There was no testimony regarding other traffic, pedestrians or children present, and the day was dry and clear. Under the language of section 3361 of the Motor Vehicle Code, simply proving a defendant was speeding is not sufficient for a conviction for failure to drive at a safe speed. The Commonwealth must show that the prevailing conditions, and/or the existence of actual or potential hazards rendered the defendant’s rate of travel unreasonable and imprudent at that particular place and time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The applicable provision of the Motor Vehicle Code here involved, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3361, states that a vehicle shall not be driven in excess of a speed greater than is reasonably prudent under conditions and potential hazards existing at that time. As the record here discloses, hazards and conditions were readily apparent. The area was residential, and the day was foggy and wet. We conclude that appellant’s driving at a speed in excess of the posted limit was greater than was reasonable and prudent given the prevailing conditions and potential hazards.”
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.