Commonwealth v. Houser’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A claim alleging the verdict was against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. Accordingly, an appellate court reviews the exercise of the trial court’s discretion; it does not answer for itself whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. It is well settled that the [fact-finder] is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses, and a new trial based on a weight of the evidence claim is only warranted where the [factfinder’s] verdict is so contrary to the evidence that it shocks one’s sense of justice. In determining whether this standard has been met, appellate review is limited to whether the trial judge’s discretion was properly exercised, and relief will only be granted where the facts and inferences of record disclose a palpable abuse of discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2012 Pa. Super. 154 - Commonwealth v. Karns

2. “To convict a defendant of first degree murder, the Commonwealth must prove: [ (1) ] a human being was unlawfully killed; [ (2) ] the defendant was responsible for the killing; and [ (3) ] the defendant acted with malice and a specific intent to kill.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Com. v. Fitzpatrick, J., III