Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 541 Pa. 393 - Commonwealth v. Loeper

Commonwealth v. Loeper’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
2
states following
August 2006
most recently cited

40 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Lavelle v. Koch · Commonwealth v. Hardcastle · Commonwealth v. Hughes · Commonwealth v. Jarman · Commonwealth v. Modaffare

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

  1. “However, a § 3731(a)(4) charge, when unaccompanied by a § 3731(a)(1) charge, involves a narrowly focused inquiry that is solely concerned with a determination of whether a defendant had a .10% or greater blood alcohol level at the time that she drove her automobile. During such an inquiry impairment evidence is not relevant since it does not logically or reasonably tend to prove or disprove that a defendant’s blood alcohol level was .10% or greater at the time that she drove her automobile, it does not tend to make such a fact more or less probable and it does not afford a basis for or support a reasonable inference or presumption regarding whether a defendant’s blood alcohol level was .10% or greater.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We ... find no basis upon which to conclude that evidence beyond that provided by scientific testing may in any manner satisfy the inquiry raised by a charge pursuant to subsection (a)(4) where the Commonwealth is not also advancing a charge pursuant to subsection (a)(1). ^ ¥ '1* Accordingly, we hold that where ... an accused is not defending a charge of violating subsection (a)(1) evidence beyond BAC testing is not only irrelevant, but prejudicial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “This Court has explained that “subsection (a)(1) is a general provision and provides no specific restraint upon the Commonwealth in the manner in which it may prove that an accused operated a vehicle under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of safe driving.” Commonwealth v. Loeper, 541 Pa. 393, 402-03 , 663 A.2d 669, 673-74 (1995).”
    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.