450 Pa. Super. 352 - Commonwealth v. Yedinak’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably State v. Friedel (1999), 2015 Pa. Super. 160 - Commonwealth v. Jones (2015)
26 state decisions
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 Florida v. Jimeno · First National Bank v. United States · Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v. United States · 44 Cal. 3d 883 - People v. Williams · Eckman v. Commonwealth
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ T]he admissibility of evidence is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and [the appellate court] may reverse only upon a showing that the trial court abused its discretion. Moreover, this Commonwealth has adopted Federal Rule of Evidence 701, which allows testimony by a lay witness in the form of an opinion, where the opinion is (1) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (2) helpful to the determination of a fact in issue.... [A] police officer may testify to his or her opinion as to a suspect’s alcohol-induced intoxication and the suspect’s ability to drive safely when the officer has observed the suspect’s appearance and acts. ... [Wle find no basis upon which to distinguish opinion testimony of drug-induced intoxication from opinion testimony of alcohol-induced intoxication where the witness is personally familiar with the effects of narcotics.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When reviewing an order entered by the suppression court, we must first ascertain whether the record supports the factual findings of the suppression court, and then determine the reasonableness of the inferences and legal conclusions drawn therefrom. Where the evidence has not been suppressed, it is our duty to consider only the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradieted. When evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact, we will not reverse unless the conclusions drawn from those facts are erroneous.”
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.