Commonwealth v. Price’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

60 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As set forth [in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision Commonwealth v. Corley , 507 Pa. 540 , 491 A.2d 829 (1985) ], therein, the guiding principles are those first established by the United States Supreme Court in Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc , 457 U.S. 922 , 102 S.Ct. 2744 , 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982). In Lugar , the Supreme Court held that the conduct allegedly causing the deprivation must be fairly attributable to the state. In explaining the "fair attribution" test, the United States Supreme Court stated: [Our] cases reflect a two-part approach to the question of "fair attribution." First, the deprivation must be caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the state .... Second, the party charged with the deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor. This may be because ... his conduct is otherwise chargeable to the state. Lugar , 457 U.S. at 937 , 102 S.Ct. at 2754 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 495 . The critical factor for purposes of determining whether state action is involved is whether the private individual, in light of all the circumstances, must be regarded as having acted as an "instrument" or agent of the state. Corley , 507 Pa. at 548 , 491 A.2d at 832 , citing Coolidge [, 403 U.S. at 487 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 .] This Court made clear in Corley that mere cooperation with the authorities alone does not constitute "state action." In other words, the mere fact that police and prosecutors use the results of an individual's actions does not”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Yim

2. “[T]he guiding principles [of state action] are those first established by the United States Supreme Court in Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922 , 102 S.Ct. 2744 , 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982). In Lugar , the Supreme Court held that the conduct allegedly causing the deprivation must be fairly attributable to the state. In explaining the “fair attribution” test, the United States Supreme Court stated: [Our] cases reflect a two-part approach to the question of “fair attribution.” First, the deprivation must be caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the state ... Second, the party charged with the deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor. This may be because ,.. his conduct is otherwise chargeable to the state. Lugar, [ 457 U.S. at 937 , 102 S.Ct. 2744 ]. The critical factor for purposes of determining whether state action is involved is whether the private individual, in light of all the circumstances, must be regarded as having acted as an “instrument” or agent of the state.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 158 - Commonwealth v. Elmobdy