Commonwealth v. Graham’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2016
8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Gallo · Cruzan v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad · Corn Products Refining Co. v. States · Commonwealth v. Graham
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The only evidence in this case is as follows: Two state police narcotics squad officers provided a police informant with $350 for the purchase of cocaine. The informant, followed by the two officers in an unmarked car, proceeded to Petro’s Bar in Uniontown where he met with appellee. Appellee and the informant left Petro’s together and, still followed by the officers, drove to another area of Uniontown. After instructing the informant to wait in the car, appellee walked away from the vehicle. Upon observing appellee walking away from the informant’s car, the officers left their car and walked to a point where they observed appellee entering Bake’s Bar. After waiting for more than an hour, the officers directed the informant to look for appellee in Bake’s Bar. The informant returned to the officers’ car and reported that appellee was not in the bar. The informant was searched at this point, and neither money nor drugs were found on his person. The informant testified at trial that he had given appellee $350 to purchase cocaine, but never received the drugs in question. The record contains no direct evidence of any kind that appellee promised to deliver drugs or anything else to the informant. The $350 has never been recovered by the Commonwealth.” (emphasis added) Id. at 251 , 596 A.2d at 1118 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The evidence here is insufficient to sustain appellee’s conviction for theft by deception. Under section 3922 of the Crimes Code, ‘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.’ Yet, that is what the jury did here. Appellee was convicted on the basis of the fact that he did not deliver cocaine to the informant. Nothing more. There are no additional facts in the record from which the intent to deceive could reasonably be inferred. ” (emphasis added) Id. at 252 , 596 A.2d at 1118 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““(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 state 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; (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.