376 Pa. Super. 307 - Commonwealth v. Ferrari’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Commonwealth v. Costello, [ 301 Pa.Super. 537 , 448 A.2d 38 (1982)] this Court stated: We hold, therefore, that the Commonwealth failed to show the existence of ‘exceptional circumstances’ that would constitute ‘good cause’ under Rule 231, as amended. Where no preliminary hearing has been held and there exist none of the recognized exceptions to the holding of a preliminary hearing, the proper remedy is to quash the information. Commonwealth v. Brabham, 225 Pa.Super. 331 , 309 A.2d 824 (1972). In view of our disposition of the Rule 231 question, we do not need to reach the other issues raised by appellant in this appeal. The judgment of sentence is reversed, appellant’s conviction is vacated, the information is quashed and appellant is discharged. 448 A.2d at 41 . Appellant seeks identical relief. Succinctly, we find that despite the holding in Costello, not every denial or abridgement of an accused’s right to a preliminary hearing warrants reversal and discharge following an otherwise fair trial and conviction. In Commonwealth v. Emmett, 274 Pa.Super. 23 , 417 A.2d 1232 (1979), this Court declined to grant a defendant discharge following his conviction where the violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 231 was technical and the defendant had not demonstrated any prejudice arising from the violation. Likewise, in Commonwealth v. Ruza, 511 Pa. 59 , 511 A.2d 808 (1986), our Supreme Court held that it was unnecessary to decide whether “good cause” to proceed under Pa.R.Crim.P. 231(a) had be”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 390 Pa. Super. 464 - Commonwealth v. Lyons · 405 Pa. Super. 590 - Commonwealth v. Jennings

2. “Generally, a subjective expectation of privacy as to that which is located in an area of common access will be deemed to be unreasonable; and therefore, visual observation of evidence located in open view in an unprotected area does not constitute a search so as to trigger Fourth Amendment protections. Commonwealth v. Chiesa, 329 Pa.Super. 401, 406-407 , 478 A.2d 850, 853 (1984) (no search when police officer shined flashlight and looked into car which was parked unattended in a driveway shared with visitors and fellow tenants); see also I LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 2.2(a) at 322-23 (2nd Ed.1987); Moylan, The Plain View Doctrine, 26 Mercer L.Rev. 1047, 1097-98 (1975). Because there is no search, there is no need for an exception to permit admission of testimony relating to the observation. Hence, such cases may properly be distinguished as relying on an open view or plain view doctrine, rather than the plain view exception as formulated in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) (plurality) reh. den. 404 U.S. 874 , 92 S.Ct. 26 , 30 L.Ed.2d 120 (1971), and refined in its progeny. See I LaFave, Search and Seizure § 2.2(a) at 320-23; Moylan, supra, at 1097-98; Note, “Plain View” — Anything But Plain, 7 Loyola L.Rev. 489, 489 n. 3 (1974). The plain view exception is ordinarily applicable where there has been a physical intrusion into a protected area prior to the observation of the evidence, or where physical intrusion for a search and s”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 426 Pa. Super. 616 - Commonwealth v. Hendrix

3. “(a) When the attorney for the Commonwealth certifies to the court of common pleas that a preliminary hearing cannot be held for a defendant because the statute of limitations will otherwise bar prosecution, an information is necessary in order to extradite the defendant, or a preliminary hearing cannot be held for other good cause, the court may grant leave to the attorney for the Commonwealth to file an information with the court without a preliminary hearing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 390 Pa. Super. 464 - Commonwealth v. Lyons