408 Pa. Super. 234 - Commonwealth v. John’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[T]he Commonwealth’s theory of the case was that John was upset that Mary John intended to spend the evening playing bingo rather than drinking with him. The Commonwealth sought to demonstrate that the relationships within this family were, at best, tumultuous. As evidence, the Commonwealth introduced Mary John’s testimony that she and John had entered a protection from abuse agreement which, among other things, prohibited John from coming to Mary John’s home. The Commonwealth also sought to demonstrate that the relationship between John and Mary was strained by showing that John entered into the altercation with their son Richard in Mary’s presence, drawing a knife. As the event occurred within half an hour of the fire, it is the Com monwealth’s position that the incident was relevant to show both John’s motive for starting the fire and his state of mind that evening.... “[W]e find no error in the trial court’s determination that the testimony regarding the altercation between John and his son, in the presence of Mary John, was indicative of malice towards Mary John and John’s state of mind that evening.” Id. at 238-39 , 596 A.2d at 836 .”

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