Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 223 PASUPER 202 - Commonwealth v. Colon

Commonwealth v. Colon’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
6
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

61 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Commonwealth v. Colson (1985), Parker v. Children's Hospital of Phila. (1978)

61 state decisions

29019721980199020002010decided

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 Irvin v. Dowd · Machibroda v. United States · Commonwealth v. Kravitz · Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board · Mikus v. United States

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

  1. “(1) when the potential juror has such a close relationship, be it familial, financial or situational, with parties, counsel, victims, or witnesses, that the court will presume the likelihood of prejudice; and (2) when the potential juror's likelihood of prejudice is exhibited by his conduct and answers to questions at voir dire.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The broad question raised here is whether law enforcement officials, because of their occupational relationship to criminal cases, should automatically be removed for cause, or whether they should be removed only if their likelihood of prejudice is manifested by their answers and demeanor on voir dire. The categories of relationships which automatically call for removal should be limited because it is desirable to have a jury composed of persons with a variety of backgrounds and experiences. We believe that an enforcement officer is capable of professional objectivity in considering the case of a defendant accused of a crime against society. Absent any real relationship to the case, the removal of an enforcement officer should depend on the sound exercise of discretion by the trial judge.” (Emphasis added.)”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[n]othing short of a palpable abuse of discretion justifies a reversal”
    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.