Commonwealth v. Sneed’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Commonwealth v. Curtis (1994), Commonwealth v. Acevedo (2006)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 60 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 Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n · Reilly v. Pinkus · Commonwealth v. Welansky · Commonwealth v. Grey · Commonwealth v. Matchett
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Proposed rule 803 (18) requires that an opponent of the expert witness bring to the witness’s attention a specific statement in a treatise that has been established, to the judge’s satisfaction, as a reliable authority. The witness should be given a fair opportunity to assess the statement in context and to comment on it, either during cross-examination or on redirect examination. The judge, of course, will have to determine the relevance and materiality of the statement and should consider carefully any claimed unfairness or confusion that admission of the statement may create.” (Emphasis added.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kace v. Liang · Brusard v. O'Toole““The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: . . . (18) Learned treatises. To the extent called to the attention of an expert witness upon cross-examination, statements contained in published treatises . . . on a subject of . . . medicine . . ., established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness or by other expert testimony or by judicial notice. If admitted, the statements may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kace v. Liang · Brusard v. O'Toole“Malice as an element of murder may be proved by evidence establishing any one of three facts beyond a reasonable doubt: if, without justification or excuse, (1) the defendant intended to kill the victim (the so-called first prong of malice), or (2) the defendant intended to do the victim grievous bodily harm (the second prong), or (3) in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonably prudent person would have known that, according to common experience, there was a plain and strong likelihood that death would follow the contemplated act (the third prong).”
2 later decisions 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.