Commonwealth v. Gagne’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 5 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently November 1995 · most notably State v. Hankerson (1975), Commonwealth v. Amazeen (1978)
9 federal appellate · 5 district · 37 state decisions
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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Commonwealth v. Johnston · Commonwealth v. Kendrick · Commonwealth v. Benders · Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP)
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It does not necessarily follow, however, that where there is any evidence of mitigating circumstances, the inference of malice is rebutted. [Emphasis in original.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“This is not like Wilbur v. Mullaney, 496 F.2d 1303 (1st Cir. 1974), cert. granted 419 U.S. 823 , 95 S.Ct. 39 , 42 L.Ed.2d 47 (1974) where arguably the burden was placed on the defendant to prove the elements of mitigation. Here, the prosecution began with and retained, the burden of proving every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The burden at all times was on the Commonwealth to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant’s testimony in rebuttal of the inference of malice was not sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as matter of law.”
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.