Commonwealth v. Tarrant’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2015
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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. Bradshaw · Commonwealth v. St. Pierre · Commonwealth v. Levia · Jones v. Commonwealth · Commonwealth v. Bettencourt
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the taking of the victim’s money and property happened during a continuous period, the offenses occurred in two different places and under different circumstances. While no one but the ■ defendant and the victim were in the foyer at the time of the robbery, the foyer, unlike the victim’s apartment, was accessible to the public. The victim testified that she was afraid while she was in the foyer and that she became more frightened in her apartment. “The essence of robbery is the exertion of force, actual or constructive, against another in other to take personal property ... from the protection which the person of that other affords.” Commonwealth v. Weiner, 255 Mass. 506 , 509, 152 N.E. 359 (1926). Commonwealth v. Levia, 385 Mass, at 348 , 431 N.E.2d 928 . These two offenses are not “so closely related in fact as to constitute in substance but a Single crime.” Commonwealth v. St. Pierre, 377 Mass. 650 , 662-663, 387 N.E.2d 1135 (1979).”
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.