Commonwealth v. Spence’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 134 - Miller v. St. Luke's Univ. Health Network · 2015 Pa. Super. 45 - Commonwealth v. Ali

2. “The intent of the General Assembly may be discerned from the plain language of the words employed in the statute. The cell phone over which the trooper heard the conversations between the [informant] and [the defendant] clearly was a telephone furnished to the subscriber or user by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business. The language of the statute states that telephones are exempt from the definition of device; the language of the statute does not state that it is the use to which the telephone is being put which determines if it is considered a device. We reject the statement by the Superior Court, that only certain uses of a telephone may exempt the telephone from being considered a device, as being contrary to the plain language contained in the definitional section of the Wiretap Act. Ac- eordingly, we hold that a state trooper does not violate the Wiretap Act when he listens through the speaker on an informant’s cellular telephone as the informant arranges a drug deal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 43 - Commonwealth v. Smith