Commonwealth v. Eberle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) that the defendant did not reasonably believe it was immediately necessary to kill in order to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm, or that the defendant used more force than was necessary or reasonably appeared to him to be necessary to save himself from death, great bodily harm or the commission of a felony, (2) that the defendant provoked the use of force, or (3) that the defendant had a duty to retreat and that retreat was possible with complete safety.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Fisher · Commonwealth v. Helm

2. “[t]his portion of the statute represents a change from the prior law. Previously, one had no duty to retreat from one’s dwelling, even if retreat could have been effectuated with safety, unless the retreat was from a member of the same household who had an equal right to be in the dwelling. Commonwealth v. Wilkes, 414 Pa. 246 , 199 A.2d 411 [, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 939 , 85 S.Ct. 344 , 13 L.Ed.2d 349 (1964) ]; Commonwealth v. Fraser, [supra ]; Commonwealth v. Johnson, [supra]. In the above statute that standard is adopted for a place of work but not for a dwelling. The actor therefore is not required to retreat from his dwelling.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Helm · 451 Pa. Super. 100 - Commonwealth v. Derby

3. “Now, we’re going to talk about the defense of justifica-tion____ And what, in effect, it means is that if the conduct of the defendant though otherwise criminal in nature would, by virtue of certain circumstances under the law be legally justified, then no offense has been committed. When there is evidence presented at trial that deadly force was used in self-defense, the burden is upon the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defense or defense of another. In this particular case there is no allegation of self-defense but the defense of another person. It is sufficient that the Commonwealth prove only that one of the elements required in the use of deadly force is lacking. If any element is disproved, then you may disregard the defense of justification. A person is justified in using deadly force in defense of another person when and only when the circumstances are such that the latter person would be justified or excused if he or she had used deadly force in his own defense. Let me clarify that. The principles and the rules applicable to the use of deadly force for the defense of another person are the same rules that would apply to that person’s own self-defense. A person interfering in a difficulty in behalf of another simply steps into the latter’s shoes. He, or in this case she, may lawfully do in another’s defense what such other might lawfully do in his own defense, but no more. She stands on the same plane. I use “”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 355 Pa. Super. 40 - Commonwealth v. Ehrsam