384 Pa. Super. 161 - Commonwealth v. Saccol’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. “In interpreting the statute before us, our goal is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature. In so doing we are called upon to use a common sense approach in which words and phrases are examined according to estab lished rules of grammar and according to their common usage. We are guided by the presumptions that the legislature did not intend a result that is absurd, unreasonable or impossible of execution.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 424 Pa. Super. 181 - Commonwealth v. Taylor · 387 Pa. Super. 234 - Commonwealth v. Shaffer

2. “When a statute defining an offense contains an exception, in the enacting clause, which is so incorporated with the language defining the offense that the ingredients of the offense cannot be accurately and clearly described if the exception is omitted, the rules of good pleading require that an indictment founded upon the statute must allege enough to show that the accused is not within the exception, but if the language of the clause defining the offense is so entirely separable from the exception that the ingredients constituting the offense may be accurately and clearly defined without any reference to the exception, the pleader may safely omit any such reference, as the matter contained in the exception is the matter of defense and must be shown by the accused.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 427 Pa. Super. 326 - Commonwealth v. Barnes

3. “In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt using wholly circumstantial evidence. The crime of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol requires that the Commonwealth prove two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) defendant was driving, operating, or in actual physical control of the automo bile, (2) while under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of safe driving.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 441 Pa. Super. 584 - Commonwealth v. Rishel