Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 161 PA 591 - Commonwealth v. Werntz

Commonwealth v. Werntz’s Empirical Analysis

1894

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
7
states following
January 1967
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently January 1967 · most notably Commonwealth v. Fugmann (1937), Haas v. Kasnot (1952)

2 federal appellate · 51 state decisions

14018941900191019201930194019501960decided

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.

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

  1. ““The interval of time from the stabbing and the distance of the barber-shop from the shed do not appear with exactness, nor are they material; for it is apparent that they were not great and that the continuity of the events was not broken. The declarations were by the party best informed and most interested, and were made at a time and place, to a person, and under circumstances which effectually exclude the presumption that they were the result of premeditation and design. ’ ’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““No fixed measure of time or distance from the main occurrence can be established as a rule to determine what shall be part of the res gestae. Each case must necessarily depend on its own circumstances, to determine whether the facts offered are really part of the same continuous transaction.””
    1 later decision 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.