Commonwealth v. Clancy’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably Commonwealth v. Bishop (1993), Commonwealth v. Stockhammer (1991)
29 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 Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal · Darden v. Wainwright · Commonwealth v. Goldman · Commonwealth v. Two Juveniles
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““the individual seeking to override the privilege of another bears the burden of establishing a legitimate need for the privileged information sought. [Two Juveniles, 397 Mass. 261 ,] 269, 491 N.E.2d 234 . Cf. United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867 , 102 S.Ct. 3440, 3446 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 [ (1982) ] (defendant must make some plausible showing of how the testimony of witnesses claimed to be necessary under the compulsory process guarantee of the Sixth Amendment would have been both material and favorable to defense). We also warned that this burden would not be met simply by a showing that the information was likely to be relevant, material, or unavailable from other sources. [Two Juveniles,] 397 Mass, at 269, 491 N.E.2d 234 . See State v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 109-110 , 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2400 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976) (mere possibility that undisclosed information might aid defense does not establish materiality).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Goldsmith v. State
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.