Schlesinger Petition’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently July 1999 · most notably Pirillo v. Pirillo (1975), Commonwealth of Pa. v. Mullen (1975)
3 federal appellate · 65 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 McNair's Petition · Carpentertown Coal & Coke Co. v. Laird · Commonwealth v. Myma · People Ex Rel. Hackley v. Kelly · Passmore Williamson's Case
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The practice of a judge entering into the trial of a case as an advocate is emphatically disapproved. The judge occupies an exalted and dignified position; he is the one person to whom the jury, with rare exceptions, looks for guidance, and from whom the litigants expect absolute impartiality. An expression indicative of favor or condemnation is quickly reflected in the jury box and at the counsel table. To depart from the clear line of duty through questions, expressions, or conduct, contravenes the orderly administration of justice. It has a tendency to take from one of the parties the right to a fair and impartial trial, as guaranteed under our system of jurisprudence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““That this Court has power to issue a writ of prohibition under the circumstances here present cannot be questioned seriously: Carpentertown Coal & Coke Co. v. Laird, 360 Pa. 94 , 61 A.2d 426 . ‘Such a writ is proper not only wherever a court acts outside of its jurisdiction but also when there is an abuse of jurisdiction. As stated in High, Extraordinary Legal Remedies (2d ed.) 604, “The object of the writ being to restrain subordinate judicial tribunals of every kind from exceeding their jurisdiction, its use in all proper cases should be upheld and encouraged, since it is of vital importance to the due administration of justice, that every tribunal vested with judicial functions should be confined strictly to the exercise of those powers with which it has been by law entrusted” ’; McNair’s Petition, 324 Pa. 48, 64 , 187 A. 498 . See also Commonwealth v. Mellon Nat. Bk. & Tr. Co., 360 Pa. 103 , 61 A.2d 430 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"But, as was well said in People v. Kelly, 24 N.Y. 74 , `. . . the conduct charged as constituting the contempt must be such that some degree of delinquency or misbehavior can be predicated of it; for if the act be plainly indifferent or meritorious, or if it be only the assertion of the undoubted right of the party, it will not become a criminal contempt by being adjudged to be so . . . . [ W ] here the act is necessarily innocent or justifiable it would be preposterous to hold it a cause of imprisonment.'" (Emphasis added).”
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.