Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 456 Pa. Super. 741 - Commonwealth v. Saunders

456 Pa. Super. 741 - Commonwealth v. Saunders’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
2
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably 2005 Pa. Super. 105 - Commonwealth v. Williams (2005), 2002 Pa. Super. 151 - Commonwealth v. Carmody (2002)

35 state decisions

280199720002010decided

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 Commonwealth v. Barud · 230 Pa. Super. 563 - Commonwealth v. Kloch · 403 Pa. Super. 223 - Commonwealth v. Leib · 362 Pa. Super. 110 - Commonwealth v. Crum · 449 Pa. Super. 378 - Commonwealth v. Karlson

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

  1. “The decision to grant or deny a petition for writ of [habeas corpus ] will be re versed on appeal only for a manifest abuse of discretion.... Our scope of review is limited to deciding whether a prima facie case was established.... [T]he Commonwealth must show sufficient probable cause that the defendant committed the offense, and the evidence should be such that if presented at trial, and accepted as true, the judge would be warranted in allowing the case to go to the jury.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The most recent Superior court cases indicate that something more than a defendant behind the wheel, with the motor running, is required to establish actual physical control of the vehicle; there must be evidence to support an inference indicating that the vehicle had been driven by the defendant while he was intoxicated. A determination of actual physical control of a vehicle is based upon the totality of the circumstances, including the location of the vehicle, whether the engine was running and whether there was additional evidence indicating that the defendant had driven the vehicle prior to the arrival of the police.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied ... discretion is abused.”
    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.