444 Pa. Super. 126 - Commonwealth v. Lytle’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
March 2001
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Davis v. United States · Hardcastle v. Pennsylvania · Commonwealth v. Hardcastle · Commonwealth v. Edmiston · Commonwealth v. Billa
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When we evaluate a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, the trier of fact could have found that each and every element of the crimes charged was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, a mere conflict in the testimony of the witness does not render the evidence insufficient, because "it is within the province of the fact finder to determine the weight to be given to the testimony and to believe all, part, or none of the evidence."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“it is within the province of the fact finder to determine the weight to be given to the testimony and to believe all, part, or none of the evidence.”
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.