Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 189 PASUPER 223 - Commonwealth v. McSorley

Commonwealth v. McSorley’s Empirical Analysis

1959

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
2
states following
March 2012
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably 319 F. Supp. 1106 - United States v. Anzelmo (1970), 360 Pa. Super. 246 - Commonwealth v. Cherpes (1987)

19 state decisions

601959196019701980199020002010decided

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. Kloiber · McNair's Petition · Matson v. Margiotti · Commonwealth v. New · Commonwealth v. Homeyer

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

  1. “I 20 Courts in other states have addressed government misfeasance in the context of recall elections and misconduct by public officials. For example, "[the common law crime of misfeasance in office has been clearly defined by [Pennsylvania] appellate courts to mean either the breach of a positive statutory duty or the performance by a public official of a discretionary act with a corrupt motive.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““[W]hen two equally reasonable and mutually inconsistent inferences can be drawn from the same set of circumstances, a jury must not be permitted to guess which inference it will adopt, especially when one of the two guesses will result in depriving a defendant of his life or his liberty. When a party on whom rests the burden of proof in either a criminal or a civil case offers evidence consistent with two opposing propositions, he proves neither.””
    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.