Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 410 PA 285 - Commonwealth v. Gooslin

Commonwealth v. Gooslin’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Commonwealth v. Gockley (1963), Commonwealth v. Commander (1970)

43 state decisions

170196319701980199020002010decided

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 Commonwealth v. Kloiber · Commonwealth v. Kravitz · Commonwealth v. Drum · Commonwealth v. Bolish · Commonwealth v. Lowry

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.

  1. “`Malice express or implied is the criterion and absolutely essential ingredient of murder. Malice in its legal sense exists not only where there is a particular ill will, but also whenever there is a wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, wanton conduct, cruelty, recklessness of consequences and a mind regardless of social duty. Legal malice may be inferred and found from the attending circumstances. [Accord: Commonwealth v. Chermansky, 430 Pa. 170 , 242 A. 2d 237 ; Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 428 Pa. 188 , 236 A. 2d 768 ; Commonwealth v. Carroll, 412 Pa. 525 , 194 A. 2d 911 .] "`To summarize: If there was an unlawful killing with (legal) malice, express or implied, that will constitute murder even though there was no intent to injure or kill the particular person who was killed and even though his death was unintentional or accidental: [citing thirteen Supreme Court of Pennsylvania cases]; 4 Blackstone, Commentaries 192-193; 40 C.J.S. § 13 p. 857, § 20 p. 866, § 21 p. 868; Wharton, Homicide § 2 p. 2, § 92 p. 112 (3rd ed. 1907); Maurer, Pennsylvania Criminal Law: Murder § 3582 p. 915 et seq., § 3689 p. 953 et seq.; I Warren, Homicide § 74 (Perm. ed. 1938); Clark & Marshall, Crimes § 245 (4th ed. 1940).'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[p]roof by eye witnesses or direct evidence of the corpus delicti or of identity or of the commission by the defendant of the crime charged is nqt necessary. It is clearly settled that a man may be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone, and a criminal intent may be inferred by the jury from facts and circumstances which are of such a nature as to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “`Murder in Pennsylvania was first authoritatively defined in the famous case of Commonwealth v. Drum, 58 Pa. 9, 15 .”
    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.