Commonwealth v. Stover

How courts have described this case

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

• holding evidence was insufficient to establish that defendant knew vehicle was stolen where it was stolen weeks earlier and he referred to it as his
• holding possession 37 days after theft of automobile was not recent, and no other evidence linked defendant to theft
• possession thirty-seven days after the theft of an automobile was not recent, and no other evidence linked the defendant to the theft
• possession of an automobile 37 days after the car was stolen is “not very recent”.
• possession of an automobile 37 days after the car was stolen is \not very recent\.
• defendant’s possession of car 37 days after it was stolen “was not very ‘recent’” and thus did not support guilty knowledge inference

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Robinson
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2015-11-19· cited 77×
• Commonwealth v. Dunlap
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-12-20· cited 19×
• Commonwealth v. Jerry
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1983-12-23· cited 9×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Henderson
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1973-05-04· cited 93×
• Commonwealth v. Williams
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1976-07-27· cited 82×
• Commonwealth v. Grant
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1975-06-24· cited 44×
• Commonwealth v. Bailey
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1977-10-06· cited 41×
• Commonwealth v. Phillips
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1978-10-20· cited 34×
• Commonwealth v. Murray
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1977-03-31· cited 28×
• Commonwealth v. Walters
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1977-10-06· cited 18×
• Commonwealth v. Williams
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1981-02-06· cited 8×
• Commonwealth v. Henderson
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1971-09-30· cited 6×