Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2005 Pa. Super. 300 - Commonwealth v. Upshur

2005 Pa. Super. 300 - Commonwealth v. Upshur’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
June 2007
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. · Harman Ex Rel. Harman v. Borah · United States v. Criden · Coker v. SM Flickinger Co., Inc. · Belo Broadcasting Corp. v. Clark

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

  1. “There are two methods for analyzing requests for closure of judicial proceedings, each of which begins with a presumption of openness — a constitutional analysis and a common law analysis. Under the constitutional approach, which is based on the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the party seeking closure may rebut the presumption of openness by showing that closure serves an important governmental interest and there is no less restrictive way to serve that interest. Under the common law approach, the party seeking closure must show that his or her interest in secrecy outweighs the presumption of openness.”
    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.