Commonwealth v. Schafer’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
March 1999
most recently cited
2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Grayned v. City of Rockford · Commonwealth v. Latimore · Commonwealth v. Kelley · Commonwealth v. Matchett · Green v. Richmond
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he significant difference between [the traditional extortion statute, ■§ 25 of Chapter 265, and subsection 39(b) of Chapter 271] is the object of the threatened harm, § 25 aimed at personal injury and § 39(b) directed to economic injury, which may or may not include property in which the victim has an ownership or possessory interest.”
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.