373 Pa. Super. 116 - Commonwealth v. Ogin’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably 2001 Pa. Super. 194 - Commonwealth v. Marti (2001), 396 Pa. Super. 436 - Commonwealth v. French (1990)
47 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 Soto v. United States · 324 Pa. Super. 420 - Commonwealth v. Taylor · Commonwealth v. Allen · Commonwealth v. MacK · 368 Pa. Super. 327 - Commonwealth v. Pearsall
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(ii) the force used is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death, serious bodily injury, disfigurement, extreme pain or mental distress or gross degradation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Section 4304 is a comprehensive provision designed to penalize those who knowingly breach a legal duty to protect the well-being of children who are entrusted to their care. See Commonwealth v. Cardwell, 357 Pa.Super. 38 , 515 A.2d 311 (1986); Commonwealth v. Taylor. As we noted in Taylor: The [Pennsylvania] Supreme Court has said that Section 4304 was drawn broadly to cover a wide range of conduct in order to safeguard the welfare and security of children. It is to be given meaning by reference to the common sense of the community and the broad protective purpose for which it was enacted. Commonwealth v. Mack, 467 Pa. 613, 618 , 359 A.2d 770, 772 (1976). 324 Pa.Super. [420] at 426-27, 471 A.2d [1228] at 1231 [(1984)]. Parents have a responsibility to advance the physical, mental, and emotional health of their children, and extreme acts or grave omissions which adversely affect a child may come within the scope of the statute. * * * * Appellants also contend that by failing to provide a duty of protection, they did not knowingly endanger [their child’s] welfare as required by section 4304. The jury could have credited the Commonwealth’s version of the events, and could have believed so much of the defense testimony as indicated that appellants knew that the conduct in question posed a threat to a child’s welfare. Thus, the elements of the crime of endangering the welfare of children were established.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence presented and all reasonable inferences taken therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and whether the evidence, thus viewed, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded the evidence produced are matters within the province of the trier of fact; the fact finder is free to believe all, some, or none of the evidence.”
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.