Commonwealth v. Yarger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... once the Commonwealth has established that the driver’s blood alcohol content reflects an amount above 0.10%, the Commonwealth has made a prima facie case under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731(a)(4). At this point, the defendant is permitted to introduce expert testimony to rebut the Commonwealth’s prima facie evidence. If the defendant decides to rebut the prima facie evidence against him with expert testimony, then the Commonwealth may present its own expert to refute this testimony.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Mechler · 2000 Pa. Super. 15 - Commonwealth v. Zugay

2. “(a.l) Prima facie evidence.- (1)It is prima facie evidence that: (i) an adult had 0.10% or more by weight of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving, operating or being in actual physical control of the movement of any vehicle if the amount of alcohol by weight in the blood of the person is equal to or greater than 0.10% at the time a chemical test is performed on a sample of the person’s breath, blood or urine.... (2)For the purposes of this section, the chemical test of the sample of the person’s breath, blood or urine shall be from a sample obtained within three hours after the person drove, operated, or was in actual physical control of the vehicle.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Petrovich · 1999 Pa. Super. 210 - Commonwealth v. Weir

3. ““... the fact that driving in Pennsylvania is a privilege and not a right, we find it unnecessary to require the Commonwealth to present expert testimony in cases where the driver has failed to rebut the Commonwealth’s prima facie evidence that his blood alcohol content was 0.10% while operating a motor vehicle ...””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Allbeck