Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 364 Pa. Super. 604 - Commonwealth v. Espada

364 Pa. Super. 604 - Commonwealth v. Espada’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
1
states following
February 2008
most recently cited

68 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently February 2008 · most notably 415 Pa. Super. 252 - Commonwealth v. Lopez (1992), 428 Pa. Super. 259 - Commonwealth v. Donahue (1993)

68 state decisions

570198719902000decided

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 Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Olmstead v. United States · Commonwealth v. Hicks

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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In reviewing an order denying a motion to suppress evidence we must determine whether the factual findings of the lower court are supported by the evidence of record. Commonwealth v. Espada, 364 Pa.Super. 604, 607 , 528 A.2d 968, 969 (1987). In making this determination, we may only consider the evidence of the Commonwealth witnesses and so much of the witnesses for the defendant as, fairly read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted. Id. If the evidence supports the findings of the lower court, we are bound by such findings and may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error. Id.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[I]n order for a stop to be reasonable under Terry [], the police officer’s reasonable and articulable belief that criminal activity was afoot must be linked with his observation of suspicious or irregular behavior on the part of the particular defendant stopped. Mere presence near a high crime area ... or in the vicinity of a recently reported crime ... does not justify a stop under Terry . Conversely, an officer’s observation of irregular behavior without a concurrent belief that crime is afoot also renders a stop unreasonable.”
    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.