Commonwealth v. Matthew’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Commonwealth v. Landis (2012), 2008 Pa. Super. 206 - Commonwealth v. Smith (2008)
30 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. Alexander · Commonwealth v. Williams · Craley v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · 426 Pa. Super. 362 - Commonwealth v. Sanders · Commonwealth v. Hall
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, a court determines, whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, is sufficient to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In this sufficiency challenge we are asked to determine what constitutes aggravated assault under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1). Thus, this is a question of law. For questions of law, our scope of review is plenary and our standard of review is de novo.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; (4) attempts to cause or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Alexander created a totality of the circumstances test, to be used on a case-by-case basis, to determine whether a defendant possessed the intent to inflict serious bodily injury. Alexander provided a list, albeit incomplete, of factors that may be considered in determining whether the intent to inflict serious bodily injury was present, including evidence of a significant difference in size or strength between the defendant and the victim, any restraint on the defendant preventing him from escalating the attack, the defendant’s use of a weapon or other implement to aid his attack, and his statements before, during, or after the attack which might indicate his intent to inflict injury. Alexander , at 889. Alexander made clear that simple assault combined with other surrounding circumstances may, in a proper case, be sufficient to support a finding that an assailant attempted to inflict serious bodily injury, thereby constituting aggravated assault.”
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.