Commonwealth v. Shoatz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

95 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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘Abandonment is primarily a question of intent, and intent may be inferred from words spoken, acts done, and other objective facts. United States v. Cowan, 2d Cir. 1968, 396 F.2d 83, 87 . All relevant circumstances existing at the time of the alleged abandonment should be considered. United States v. Manning, 5th Cir.1971, 440 F.2d 1105, 1111 . Police pursuit or the existence of a police investigation does not of itself render abandonment involuntary. See Abel v. United States, supra [ 362 U.S. 217 , 80 S.Ct. 683 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960)]; United States v. Edwards, 5th Cir.1971, 441 F.2d 749 ; Lurie v. Oberhauser, 9th Cir.1970, 431 F.2d 330 .’”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 412 Pa. Super. 603 - Commonwealth v. Bennett · 329 Pa. Super. 69 - Commonwealth v. Anderl

2. “[A]t the time of his arrest approximately one and one-half years after the incident, appellant along with his companions were found to have possessed numerous advanced military weapons and munitions. These items included two of the United States Army’s most advanced automatic rifles or machine guns, the M-16, plastic explosives manufactured solely for military use and other various military-type of ammunition. It is now contended that this evidence was irrelevant and served only to inflame and prejudice the jury since appellant was not being tried for the possession of this property. Inasmuch as the instruments and devices found on appellant consisted of guns, ammunition and explosives, all of which corresponded generically and some of which corresponded exactly to the type of ammunition used in the homicide, it was relevant as a circumstance to help identify appellant and to help to connect him with the crime of which he was accused ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2004 Pa. Super. 458 - Commonwealth v. Broaster

3. “The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary, Terry recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response. [Citation omitted.] A brief stop of a suspicious individual in order to determine his identity or maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time. [Citations omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 303 Pa. Super. 336 - Commonwealth v. Stein