Commonwealth v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 48 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. “On December 15,1974 Fant, Rodgers and Collins were at a nightclub from which Fant was ejected as a result of an altercation at the bar. Thereafter a scuffle broke out in the parking lot and Bruce Fisher, the nightclub owner, sprayed mace into the group to restore order. As Fant, Rodgers and Collins were leaving they announced they would return. Shortly thereafter these three, accompanied by appellant, returned to the parking lot. Fant was carrying a rifle and appellant a hand gun. Fant yelled, “Who do I shoot?” to the persons in the parking lot, and the four men entered the nightclub through the front door. Once inside, appellant asked, “Which one is Bruce, where is Bruce?” Bruce Fisher approached the group and appellant said to him, “What are you doing beating on my brother?” Fisher was then struck on the head with a beer bottle by Rodgers. According to the uncontradicted testimony of one witness, during this time the appellant was waving his pistol around as if to cover Fant, who was holding the rifle. As Fisher turned and walked away from the group, Fant brought his rifle up to waist level and fired, striking Fisher in the back and killing him almost instantly. Fant fired several other shots, one of which struck and killed John Shlosky, a patron, in the rear of the bar. As Fant was firing his rifle, appellant who stood beside him, fired his revolver several times in the nightclub, not hitting either Fisher or Shlosky. One or two other patrons of the lounge were injured by ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Smith

2. “Q: During the period, on the day in fact when Miss Manigault was brought to the Medical Examiner’s Office for postmortem examination, did you have an opportunity to view the body? A: Yes. Q: Did you supervise the postmortem examination which was in fact performed by Dr. Heilman, who was a fellow at that time? A: I was present and looked over the case as he did it. The attending pathologist at the Medical Examiner’s Office who was assigned for signing out cases that day was Dr. Hoyer, and his signature appears at least one place in this report. The principle [sic] person who did the autopsy was in fact Rick Heilman. Q: Have you had an opportunity since that time to review both the slides, all the appropriate documents and all the materials that are involved in the postmortem examination of Sheila Manigault? A: Yes. I went over this case with him before the autopsy and after. Q: After speaking with Dr. Heilman and reviewing the appropriate documents, did you view the slides as well? A: Yes. Q: Viewing the slides, were you able to reach an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to the cause of death of Sheila Manigault? [Defense counsel objected and was overruled by the court.] A: I have no doubt that this lady died, as is documented here, from the effects of being beaten, scalded and finally drowned.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Ali

3. “this Court has determined that a medical expert is permitted to express opinion testimony on medical matters based, in part, on reports of others which are not in evidence, but which the medical expert customarily relies upon in the practice of his profession.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Elliott