394 Pa. Super. 146 - Commonwealth v. Austin’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably 421 Pa. Super. 548 - Stidham v. Millvale Sportsmen's Club (1992), 415 Pa. Super. 564 - Commonwealth v. Gonzales (1992)
43 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 Lehman Bros. v. Lilly · Commonwealth v. Clark · Commonwealth v. O'SEARO · Commonwealth v. Wojdak · Commonwealth v. Young
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““At a preliminary hearing the Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably the one who committed it. (citation omitted) To sustain that burden the Commonwealth must produce evidence that, if accepted as true, would warrant the trial judge to allow the case to go to the jury, (citation omitted) The prima facie standard requires that the Commonwealth produce evidence of the existence of each and every element of the crime charged; consequently, absence of evidence as to the existence of a material element is fatal, (citation omitted) This standard does not require that the Commonwealth prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt nor that evidence is available that would prove each element at trial beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citation omitted) Commonwealth v. Austin, 394 Pa. Super. 146, 150-51 , 575 A.2d 141, 143 (1990).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The proper focus for determining the mental component of the crime is how appellant intended to use the knife or what caused the knife to come into contact with a vital area of a human body. A specific intent to kill and malice are properly implied when a deadly weapon is directed to a vital part of the body. In other words, what did Austin intend to do with the knife: was it his intention to put the knife into the victim or was it his intention to do something else.”
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.