Commonwealth v. Albert’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably Commonwealth v. Waite (1996), Commonwealth v. Rosa (1996)
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 62 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 · Sandstrom v. Montana · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Commonwealth v. Harrington · Commonwealth v. Madeiros
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“delineating the elements of a particular offense that it was up to the Commonwealth to establish, and [the language was] immediately preceded or succeeded by a recitation that the burden of proof was on the Commonwealth.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Certainly, the jury were entitled to infer malice from the intentional use of a deadly weapon, so long as the judge's instructions did not compel them to do so”
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.