Commonwealth v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

174 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 174 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Court must first determine whether the issue underlying the charge of ineffectiveness is of arguable merit. Commonwealth v. Sherard, 483 Pa. 183 , 394 A.2d 971 (1978). If the underlying issue is found to be of arguable merit, our inquiry shifts to a determination of whether the course chosen by counsel had some reasonable basis aimed at promoting his client’s interests. Commonwealth v. Evans, 489 Pa. 85, 91 , 413 A.2d 1025, 1028 (1980); Commonwealth v. Sherard, supra.”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 318 Pa. Super. 450 - Commonwealth v. Mayfield · 334 Pa. Super. 228 - Commonwealth v. Muller

2. ““ ‘The duration of a conspiracy depends upon the facts of the particular case, that is, it depends upon the scope of the agreement entered into by its members. Generally, the conspiracy ends when its principal objective is accomplished because no agreement to retain secrecy after the achievement of the unlawful end can be shown or implied by mere “acts of covering up.” Thus in Grunewald v. United States, supra, 353 U.S. [391] at 402, 77 S.Ct. [963] at 972, [ 1 L.Ed.2d 931 (1957),] the Supreme Court stated, “Acts of covering up, even though done in the context of a mutually understood need for secrecy, cannot themselves constitute proof that concealment of the crime after its commission was part of the initial agreement among the conspirators.” But the fact that the “central objective” of the conspiracy has been nominally attained does not preclude the continuance of the conspiracy. Where there is evidence that the conspirators originally agreed to take certain steps after the principal objective of the conspiracy was reached, or evidence from which such agreement may reasonably be inferred, the conspiracy may be found to continue. Atkins v. United States, 307 F.2d 937, 940 (9th Cir. 1962); cf., United States v. Allegretti, 340 F.2d 254, 256 (7th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 911 , 85 S.Ct. 1531 , 14 L.Ed.2d 433 (1965).... The crucial factor is the necessity for some showing that the later activities were part of the original plan.’ ” (Footnote omitted) (Citations omitted”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 391 Pa. Super. 262 - Commonwealth v. Moyers · 418 Pa. Super. 23 - Commonwealth v. Cull

3. ““The declarations or acts of one conspirator made to third parties in the absence of his co-conspirator are admissible in evidence against both provided that such declarations or acts were made during the conspiracy and in furtherance of the common design.””

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