373 Pa. Super. 341 - Commonwealth v. Markum’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

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

1. “"that a justification defense may not be raised if the asserted 'harm' is legal is not dependent upon whether such conduct has been made legal through legislative choice or judicial fiat. We live in a society of laws and no individual is entitled to raise himself above the law. We are each bound by the law no matter its source. Were we free to pick and choose which laws we wished to obey, the result would be a society of strife and chaos. Therefore, even if the legislature [has] *Page 1383 made a clear choice regarding abortion 8 , the justification defense [is still] unavailable because abortion is lawful by virtue of the United States Constitution 9 . Certainly, justification may not be asserted as a grounds for interference with a person's right to free speech even though that right has not been legislatively approved. Free speech has been constitutionally approved, as has a woman's right to abortion. Democracy allows the citizenry to protest laws of which they disapprove. But they must nonetheless obey such laws or face the legal consequences. To allow the defense of justification to those who willingly and intentionally break the law would encourage criminality cloaked in the guise of conscience."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 580 So. 2d 1377 - Allison v. City of Birmingham · City of Helena v. Lewis

2. ““As we have noted, pre-viability abortion is lawful by virtue of state statute and federal constitutional law. The United States Supreme Court, from Roe through its progeny, has consistently held that the state’s interest in protecting fetal life does not become compelling, and cannot infringe on a woman’s right to choose abortion, until the fetus is viable. Roe at 163-64 , 93 S. Ct. at 732 . Appellants do not suggest that viability and conception are simultaneous ocurrences. We find that a legally sanctioned activity cannot be termed a public disaster.” Com. v. Markum, 373 Pa. Super at 349 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Wichita v. Tilson

3. “the opportunity to invoke the justification defense in respect to the viability standard utilized by the clinic and the likelihood that viable fetuses might be aborted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 701 So. 2d 1105 - McMillan v. City of Jackson