423 Pa. Super. 112 - Commonwealth v. Kasunic’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
August 2007
most recently cited
20 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Griscavage · Commonwealth v. Harper · Commonwealth v. Edwards · Commonwealth v. Jarman · Commonwealth v. Modaffare
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he supreme court did not draw a bright numerical line between what it would consider to be a minimal upward departure suggesting a weak inference of guilt and what would constitute a significant upward deviation which would give rise to a strong inference of guilt. In like vein, the supreme court failed to establish a temporal cut-off for the drawing of a suspect’s blood to indicate either a weak or a strong inference of guilt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“evidence does not indicate the exact time when appellant operated his vehicle[,] .... in light of the frigid temperature of four degrees below zero Fahrenheit that night, appellant could not have been at the scene laying on the road for a substantial period of time”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mechler
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.