Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 316 MASS 383 - Commonwealth v. Welansky

Commonwealth v. Welansky’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

273
cited by 273 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 9 district · 231 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 273 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2022 · most notably Farmer v. Brennan (1994), Morissette v. United States (1952)

19 federal appellate · 9 district · 231 state decisions — followed in 11 states

600194419501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Nash v. United States · Jamison v. Encarnacion · Altman v. Aronson · Miller v. Strahl · Commonwealth v. McCan

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

  1. “a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the defendant's actions constitute “wanton or reckless conduct ... if an ordinary normal [woman] under the same circumstances would have realized the gravity of the danger.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Wanton or reckless conduct is determined based either on the defendant's specific knowledge or on what a reasonable person should have known in the circumstances. If based on the objective measure of recklessness)" the defendant's actions constitute “wanton or reckless conduct ... if an ordinary normal [woman] under the same circumstances would have realized the gravity of the danger." If based on.the subjective measure, i.e., the defendant’s .own knowledge, "grave danger to others must have been apparent and the defendant must have chosen to run the risk rather than alter [her] conduct so as to avoid the act or omission which.caused the harm.””
    2 later decisions 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.