Commonwealth v. Tarrant’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Commonwealth v. Appleby (1980), Commonwealth v. a Juvenile (1975)
2 federal appellate · 68 state decisions — followed in 11 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 People v. Graham · Commonwealth v. Richards · 128 Cal. App. 105 - People v. Raleigh · Commonwealth v. Jones · Commonwealth v. Farrell
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]mprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n assault by means of a dangerous weapon, whether the weapon is actually used to inflict harm is largely irrelevant. Rather, as we have stated, the "relevant point is the 'objectively menacing conduct of the defendant ... [producing] the fear of harm which it was intended to produce, with the same consequential tendency to provoke a breach of the peace.' " Commonwealth v. Tarrant , 367 Mass. 411 , 415, 326 N.E.2d 710 (1975), quoting Commonwealth v. Slaney , 345 Mass. 135 , 140, 185 N.E.2d 919 (1962). See Henson , 357 Mass. at 692 , 259 N.E.2d 769 . See also J.R. Nolan & L.J. Sartorio, Criminal Law § 324 (3d ed. 2001) ("The question is whether the object has the apparent ability to inflict harm if used as threatened, the secret intent of the defendant being immaterial”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * the issue, where a neutral object is involved, turns on whether the instrumentality under the control of the perpetrator has the apparent ability to inflict harm, whether the victim reasonably so perceived it, and whether the perpetrator by use of the instrumentality intended to elicit fear in order to further the robbery. [ 326 N. E. 2d at 715 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State ex rel. J. R.
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.