Commonwealth v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In considering this question of causation, this Court rejected the tort “but for” theory as being too remote a basis upon which to predicate criminal responsibility. Commonwealth v. Redline, supra. In Red-line, we repudiated the reasoning in Commonwealth v. Thomas, 382 Pa. 639 , 117 A.2d 204 (1955) and Commonwealth v. Almeida, 362 Pa. 596 , 68 A.2d 595 (1949). In Thomas and Almeida we had indicated that a felon could be held responsible for the death caused by police or a victim resisting the commission of the felony. The rationale for both of these decisions was based upon the view that the death would not have occurred “but for” the attempt to commit the underlying felony. In essence, our holding in Redline stands for the proposition that the mere willingness to commit the underlying felony would not result in criminal liability for a death that was a “coincidence” but not a “consequence” of the felony. Commonwealth v. Redline, supra, 391 Pa. at 495 , 137 A.2d at 476 . See also, Commonwealth ex rel. Smith v. Myers, 438 Pa. 218 , 261 A.2d 550 (1970). Thus, where there is a single perpetrator of the crime it must be determined that some act of his was the direct cause of the death, and it is not sufficient to show his commission of the underlying felony alone.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 285 Pa. Super. 34 - Commonwealth v. Lang

2. ““When we read Section 2502(a) and (b) [footnote omitted] together, it becomes apparent that the Legislature followed the same pattern as that used in the drafting of the previous murder section found at Section 701 of the 1939 Code . . . This virtual adoption of the former Section 701 provides the clearest possible indication of a legislative intent to incorporate [in the Crimes Code] the existing law of murder [footnote omitted] ...” (Emphasis supplied.) Com. v. Allen, 475 Pa. 165 , 379 A. 2d 1335, 1339 (197 ). Accordingly, we look to The Penal Code of 1939, and again we discover that murder is not defined.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Brown