Commonwealth v. MacPherson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

77 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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A statute will be found unconstitutional only if it clearly, palpably and plainly violates constitutional rights. Under well-settled principles of law, there is a strong presumption that legislative enactments do not violate the constitution. Further, there is a heavy burden of persuasion upon one who questions the constitutionality of an Act.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2010 Pa. Super. 34 - In the Interest of A.C. · 2007 Pa. Super. 137 - In re S.A.

2. “A permissive inference allows, but does not require, the factfinder to infer the elemental fact from proof of the basic fact and places no burden of persuasion or production on the defendant. In this situation, the basic fact may constitute "prima facie” evidence of the elemental fact. . . . By contrast, a mandatoiy presumption tells the trier of fact that he must find the elemental fact upon proof of the basic fact. A mandato-iy presumption is either rebuttable or conclusive. A mandatory rebuttable presumption requires the factfinder to find the presumed element if the basic fact is proven, unless the defendant comes forward with some evidence to rebut the presumed connection between the two facts. Once the defendant satisfies this burden of production, the ultimate burden of persuasion returns to the prosecution.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of Pittsburgh v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · Commonwealth v. Hall

3. “[ W]e conclude that § 3731(a.l) creates a permissible inference [of a BAC above the legal limit at the time of driving]. By its terms, § 3731(a.l) does no more than allow the Commonwealth to establish its case in a § 3731(a)(4) prosecution. Section 3731(a.l) does not shift the burden of proof or the burden of production from the Commonwealth to the defendant. The defendant may introduce competent evidence to rebut the inference and overcome the Commonwealth’s prima facie case. Even in the absence of such evidence, however, the factfinder is not required to find that the defendant had a BAC of .10% or more while he drove. Based upon its independent evaluation of the evidence presented, the factfinder in a § 3731(a)(4) prosecution is always free to ignore the inference allowed by § 3731(a.l).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 354 - Commonwealth v. Snell · 2003 Pa. Super. 379 - Commonwealth v. Freidl