Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 436 Pa. Super. 535 - Commonwealth v. Grimes

436 Pa. Super. 535 - Commonwealth v. Grimes’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
2
states following
January 2015
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably Commonwealth v. White (1995), Commonwealth v. Wright (2008)

25 state decisions

160199420002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · California v. Green · Horton v. California · Commonwealth v. Pierce · Commonwealth v. Brady

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

  1. “It is well settled that in order to be convicted under this statute, the Commonwealth need not prove that the vehicle was in motion at the time of the incident, but rather, must simply prove that the defendant was in actual physical control over the vehicle, and was, thus, a threat to public safety. Commonwealth v. Crum, 362 Pa.Super. 110, 113-17 , 523 A.2d 799, 801-02 (1987). The concept of “actual physical control” involves the control of the movements of either the machinery of a motor vehicle or of the management of the vehicle itself, without a requirement that the entire vehicle be in motion. Commonwealth v. Bobotas, 403 Pa.Super. 136, 141-43 , 588 A.2d 518, 521 (1991).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[0]nly those prior inconsistent statements “that are demonstrably reliable and trustworthy” may be admitted as substantive evidence. Commonwealth v. Lively, 530 Pa. 464, 469-71 , 610 A.2d 7, 10 (1992). To this end, the Lively Court required as a requisite to admissibility, that the prior statement be: (1) given under oath at a formal legal hearing; (2) reduced to a writing which was signed or adopted by the witness; or (3) a contemporaneous verbatim recording of the witness’s statements.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The test to be applied is whether, viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, and drawing all reasonable inferences favorable to the Commonwealth, there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    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.