Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 504 Pa. 600 - Commonwealth v. Warner

Commonwealth v. Warner’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
August 2005
most recently cited

20 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 1 Cal. 3d 475 - People v. Gilbert · 28 Cal. 3d 494 - People v. Jenkins · Commonwealth v. Brown · 282 Pa. Super. 100 - Commonwealth v. Bidner · 298 Pa. Super. 294 - Commonwealth v. Volk

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

  1. “theft by deception and the false statements section of the Welfare Code involve distinct elements. There is no irrec oncilable conflict between them on their face, and any actual conflict between them can only be determined when the facts of the case are fully developed. It may well appear that the same acts on appellee’s part constituted violations of both statutes. If so, prosecution under the Welfare Code alone is permitted. On the other hand, different acts by appellee may have violated each statute independently.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(a) Offense Defined—A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally obtains or withholds property of another by deception. A person deceives if he intentionally: (1) creates or reinforces a false impression, including false impressions as to law, value, intention or other states of mind; but deception as to a person’s intention to perform a promise shall not be inferred from the fact alone that he did not subsequently perform the promise; (2) prevents another from acquiring information which would affect his judgment of a transaction; or (3) fails to correct a false impression which the deceiver previously created or reinforced, or which the deceiver knows to be influencing another to whom he stands in a fiduciary or confidential relationship. (b) Exception.—The term “deceive” does not, however, include falsity as to matters having no pecuniary significance, or puffing by statements unlikely to deceive ordinary persons in the group addressed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““From the time period between January, 1978 and April 24, 1978, the defendant committed the crime of Theft by Deception, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3922(a) each time she cashed an assistance check because the defendant created the false impression that she was entitled to the money she was receiving. 30 The defendant’s failure to inform the Welfare authorities of her earnings during the time period of January to April 24,1978 amounted to theft under the general language of the Crimes Code but did not amount to willful false statements of misrepresentation under the Welfare Code, 62 P.S. § 481(a) because the defendant made no statements whatsoever to the Welfare authorities.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.