Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 383 PA 18 - Commonwealth v. Moon

Commonwealth v. Moon’s Empirical Analysis

1955

Citation profile

100
cited by 100 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
April 2008
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 89 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 100 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2008 · most notably Ford v. Wainwright (1986), Commonwealth v. Hughes (1989)

6 federal appellate · 89 state decisions

300195519601970198019902000decided

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 Mamlin v. Genoe · Commonwealth v. Ragone · Commonwealth v. Carluccetti · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Smith v. Ashe · Commonwealth v. Scovern

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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(11) `Mental illness' shall mean an illness which so lessens the capacity of a person to use his customary self-control, judgment and discretion in the conduct of his affairs and social relations as to make it necessary or advisable for him to be under care. The term shall include `insanity', `unsoundness of mind', `lunacy', `mental disease', `mental disorder', and all other types of mental cases, but the term shall not include `mental deficiency', `epilepsy', `inebriety', or `senility', unless mental illness is superimposed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Assuming the commission found appellant a proper subject for commitment under this standard, its findings while persuasive were nevertheless advisory only and not mandatory upon the court, for under Section 345 (d) of the Act it is the court and not the commission which must be satisfied that appellant is mentally ill under the standard prescribed. It follows that the court in the instant case could have rejected, although not arbitrarily or capriciously, the commission's findings and conclusions and could have independently determined from the evidence that appellant's capacity to use his customary self-control, judgment and discretion had not been so lessened that it was necessary or advisable for him to be under care. . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “If, after he [the defendant] be tried and found guilty, he loses his senses before judgment, judgment shall not be pronounced; and if after judgment he becomes of nonsane memory, execution shall be stayed; for peradventure, says • the humanity of English law, had the prisoner been of sound memory, he might have alleged something in stay of judgment or execution.”
    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.