Commonwealth v. Cronin’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
114 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably Commonwealth v. Emerick (1953), Kaufman Construction Co. v. Holcomb (1947)
114 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Augustus Reetz v. People of the State of Michigan · Gaines v. State of Washington · Commonwealth v. Funk · Weinbach's Appeal
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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the licensees are given full opportunity to present their defense before the hearing inspectors, and to cross-examine their accusers asserting charges against them, many unnecessary appeals to the court from the action of the Secretary will be avoided.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is our conclusion that the hearing de novo in the court below protected defendant against an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the Secretary. It gave defendant his day in court, and with it the right to present every available defense which he possessed against the suspension of the license. Regardless of whether he was accorded a proper hearing before the Secretary, it is certain that the hearing de novo remedied the infringement of any constitutional right of which defendant may have been deprived.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Caba v. Weaknecht““[I]t is the duty of the court to hear de novo the witnesses of the commonwealth and the witnesses of the licensee, and, from the testimony taken, to determine anew whether the operator’s license should be suspended.” At such hearing neither the action of the Secretary nor the testimony taken before his representative is properly part of the record of the case. In these respects the proceeding resembles that followed on appeal from a judgment obtained before a justice of the peace, or a magistrate!.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Caba v. Weaknecht
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.