2005 Pa. Super. 267 - Commonwealth v. Maerz’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently December 2023
12 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. Hock · Commonwealth v. Johnson · 296 Pa. Super. 393 - Commonwealth v. Kidd · 399 Pa. Super. 477 - Commonwealth v. Gowan · 449 Pa. Super. 450 - Commonwealth v. Gilbert
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Offense defined. — A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; (2) makes unreasonable noise; (3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or (4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“is not intended as a catchall for every act which annoys or disturbs people; it is not to be used as a dragnet for all the irritations which breed in the ferment of a community. It has a specific purpose; it has a definite objective, it is intended to preserve the public peace.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“not fitting or proper in respect to the conventional standards of organized society or a legally constituted community.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Farmer v. Decker
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.