Commonwealth v. Cassidy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1999 Pa. Super. 238 - Commonwealth v. Sneddon · Commonwealth v. Sales

2. “§ 2901. Kidnapping (a) Offense defined. — A person is guilty of kidnapping if he unlawfully removes another a substantial distance under the circumstances from the place where he is found, or if he unlawfully confines another for a substantial period in a place of isolation, with any of the following intentions: (1) To hold for ransom or reward, or as a shield or hostage. (2) To facilitate commission of any felony or flight thereafter. (3) To inflict bodily injury on or to terrorize the victim or another. (4) To interfere with the performance by public officials of any governmental or political function. (b) Grading. — Kidnapping is a felony of the first degree. A removal or confinement is unlawful within the meaning of this section if it is accomplished by force, threat or deception, or, in the case of a person who is under the age of 14 years or an incapacitated person, if it is accomplished without the consent of a parent, guardian or other person responsible for general supervision of his welfare.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Pa. Super. 249 - Commonwealth v. Roche · 2005 Pa. Super. 318 - Commonwealth v. Mitchell

3. “The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner and drawing all proper inferences favorable to the Commonwealth, the faet-finder could reasonably have determined all elements of the crime to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Syre, 507 Pa. 299 , 489 A.2d 1340 (1985). This standard is equally applicable to cases where the evidence is circumstantial rather than direct so long as the combination of the evidence links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 472 Pa. 129, 150 , 371 A2d 468, 478 (1977); Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 467 Pa. 50 , 354 A.2d 545 (1976); Commonwealth v. Cox, 466 Pa. 582 , 353 A.2d 844 (1976). Commonwealth v. Hardcastle, 519 Pa. 236, 246 , 546 A.2d 1101, 1105 (1988); see also Commonwealth v. Bowser, 425 Pa.Super. 24 , 624 A.2d 125 (1993); Commonwealth v. Blystone, 421 Pa.Super. 167 , 617 A.2d 778 (1992); Commonwealth v. Scott, 376 Pa.Super. 416 , 546 A.2d 96 (1988). In applying this test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. See Commonwealth v. Blystone, supra. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. See Commonwealth v. Nicotra, 425 Pa.Super. 600 , 625 A.2d 1259 (1993). Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-fi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Oliver