397 Pa. Super. 179 - Commonwealth v. Labelle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

53 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Offense defined.—A person shall not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of any vehicle while: (1) under the influence of alcohol to a degree which renders the person incapable of safe driving;”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 413 Pa. Super. 442 - Commonwealth v. Wanner · 407 Pa. Super. 151 - Commonwealth v. Yingling

2. ““However, because appellee entered pleas of guilty to the summary offenses, the record does not disclose the nature of the conduct upon which the Commonwealth would have relied to prove the charges against appellee. Unlike the record before the Supreme Court in Grady v. Corbin, supra, in which the actions upon which the state intended to base the subsequent prosecution were revealed in terms specific enough to enable the court to determine that respondent had already been prosecuted for the same conduct, the record in the case before us is devoid of any evidence clearly establishing the identity of conduct that invokes the Double Jeopardy Clause. “Therefore, although appellee asserts that the DUI prosecution is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause, he has failed to demonstrate, either to the trial court or to this court, that his conviction on the reckless driving charge was necessarily based on either his blood alcohol level or the effect of alcohol on his ability to drive.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Smith

3. “§ 110. When prosecution barred by former prosecution for different offense Although a prosecution is for a violation of a different provision of the statutes than a former prosecution or is based on different facts, it is barred by such former prosecution under the following circumstances: (1) The former prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as defined in section 109 of this title (relating to when prosecution barred by former prosecution for the same offense) and the subsequent prosecution is for: (ii) any offense based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode, if such offense was known to the appropriate prosecuting officer at the time of the commencement of the first trial and was within the jurisdiction of a single court unless the court ordered a separate trial of the charge of such offense____”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 405 Pa. Super. 281 - Commonwealth v. Walton