381 Pa. Super. 568 - Commonwealth v. Evers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Wjhere applicable, section 110 and the compulsory joinder rule ... offer greater protection to the accused than does the double jeopardy clause. Thus, section 110 may require joinder in a single trial offenses which would not under the double jeopardy clause. The flip side of this is those rules, being a rule or statute of Pennsylvania authority, are subject to the creation of exceptions and limitations of either judicial or legislative design by Pennsylvania courts and legislature. The vitality of the double jeopardy clause, being one of the Bill of Rights of the federal constitution is not as fragile. Neither the Pennsylvania courts nor the Pennsylvania legislature is empowered to restrict the scope of the constitutional protection and a decision construing or holding that the Pennsylvania originated protections of section 110 and the compulsory joinder rule, do not apply to a certain set of circumstances, by itself, in no way affects the applicability of constitutional protections to the same set of circumstances.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re T.H. · 412 Pa. Super. 469 - Commonwealth v. Bellezza

2. “unwilling to believe ... that the other statements made by our supreme court in the context of the Taylor decision, which do not specifically involve Section 110(l)(ii), are mere surplusage. Our supreme court in Taylor , and earlier in Beatty , expressly considered and addressed constitutional double jeopardy protections.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 397 Pa. Super. 179 - Commonwealth v. Labelle