Commonwealth v. Kneller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the issue REMANDED to the Superior Court for further proceedings pursuant to Judge Stevens' dissenting opinion. Commonwealth v. Kneller, 971 A.2d 495, 504 (Pa.Super.2009) (en banc ) (Stevens, J., dissenting). The Commonwealth, as verdict winner, is entitled to have the facts reviewed in the light most favorable to it. Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 570 Pa. 117 , 808 A.2d 893, 907-08 (2002). The facts, viewed accordingly, reveal no immediate need to kill the dog, a directive by [Kneller] to her co-defendant to kill the dog, and the unquestionably malicious beating of the dog before it was shot. These facts provide sufficient evidence to support [Kneller's] conviction of conspiracy to commit cruelty to animals, and should not have been undone because of considerations of a dog owner's authority to humanely shoot the dog. See Commonwealth v. Murphy, 577 Pa. 275 , 844 A.2d 1228, 1238 (2004) (conspirator responsible for acts of co-conspirator done in furtherance of agreement). Jurisdiction relinquished.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2010 Pa. Super. 122 - Commonwealth v. Kneller