Commonwealth v. Passarella’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 2009
22 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Harris · Commonwealth v. Halteman · Commonwealth v. Gallagher · Scannella v. Salerno Importing Co. · Commonwealth v. Buffin
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No medical doctor testified that appellee suffered an actual concussion; no medical evidence was introduced as to what effects such a concussion would have had on appellee after he was released from the hospital. Testimony as to appellee’s medical ‘record’ were of doubtful validity and merely indicated that a ‘possible’ concussion occurred. As said in Commonwealth v. Harris, 351 Pa. 325, 330 , 41 A.2d 688, 691 (1945), quoted in Scannella v. Salerno Importing Co., 2 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 11, 15 , 275 A.2d 907, 909 (1971): ‘Certainly every “act, condition or event” which some hospital physician places in a hospital record does not ipso facto become competent when later an issue is being judicially tried to which such fact would be relevant if proved by competent testimony.’ (Emphasis in original).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The automobile has bestowed great material, intellectual and social benefits. By the agency of the bad driver, it has also visited upon a substantial minority of persons disasters of Apocalyptic dimensions. At the forefront of the instruments of destruction has been the drunken driver. [The implied consent laws] were intended to supply scientific, physiological proof of the presence or absence of the influence of intoxicants, as a substitute for or supplement to the observations of eyewitnesses, uncertain when made and usually required to be recalled long after the event. Furthermore, the jury could thus be provided a means of accounting for aberrant behavior otherwise than as symptomatic of the inevitable blow on the head.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.