Commonwealth v. Carter

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that because the indecent assault statute is silent as to the culpability sufficient to establish the crime, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 302(c
• stating that because the indecent assault statute is silent as to the culpability sufficient to establish the crime, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 302(c
• applying § 302(c) to find there was sufficient evidence showing “a substantial risk that [the victim] was of such mental infirmity as to render her incapable of consent”
• “In the present case, appellant was not charged with subsection (2) but with subsection (1
• “In the present case, appellant was not charged with subsection (2) but with subsection (1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Price
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-11-13· cited 53×
• Nelida Cabeda v. Attorney General United States
  Third Circuit· 2020-08-18· cited 25×
• Commonwealth v. Nay
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-09-19· cited 17×
• Commonwealth v. Thomson
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1996-03-13· cited 7×

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Sisak
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1969-11-28· cited 116×
• Commonwealth v. Mulgrew
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1977-12-01· cited 65×
• Commonwealth v. Sanabria
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1978-03-23· cited 29×
• Commonwealth v. Twiggs
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1979-07-06· cited 20×
• Commonwealth v. Blash
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1977-03-31· cited 2×