Commonwealth v. Blee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Did the lower court err in granting defendant’s suppression motion based on speculation that a package of contraband addressed to a third party may have been improperly opened in California where defendant, apart from having no standing to raise the issue, clearly lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in the package at the time of the search? Our standard of review in this case is well settled. In reviewing an order granting a motion to suppress, an appellate court may consider only the evidence of the defendant’s witnesses and so much of the Commonwealth’s evidence that, read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted. Furthermore, our scope of appellate review is limited primarily to questions of law. We are bound by the suppression court’s findings of fact if those findings are supported by the record. Factual findings wholly lacking in evidence, however, may be rejected. Commonwealth v. Torres, 429 Pa.Super. 228 , 632 A.2d 319, 320 (1993).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2000 Pa. Super. 253 - Commonwealth v. Black

2. “never testified as to the number of alcohol-related accidents and/or arrests on Route 11 in Edwardsville , the specific location of the sobriety checkpoint.”

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