442 Pa. Super. 94 - Commonwealth v. Metzker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Traditionally, prosecutors in Pennsylvania have been given great latitude in deciding which cases to prosecute and in rejecting those which do not warrant prosecution. The power to prosecute is enormous, bringing as it does the resources of the Commonwealth to bear on the accused. Thus, we expect those entrusted with this authority to exercise it wisely, and not proceed where they conclude that a conviction cannot be attained.” Commonwealth v. Metzker, 442 Pa. Super. 94, 97 , 658 A.2d 800, 801 (1995).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Grampp · 2000 Pa. Super. 383 - In Re Private Complaint of Adams

2. “The trial court concluded and we agree that the complaint set forth sufficient facts to allege a prima facie case. As we stated in Commonwealth v. Jury, ... once the complaint establishes a prima facie case, the prosecutor cannot rest the disapproval on a legal assessment of the complaint.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2000 Pa. Super. 383 - In Re Private Complaint of Adams