Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 426 MASS 67 - Commonwealth v. Hamilton

Commonwealth v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Commonwealth v. Lao (2011), Commonwealth v. McAfee (1999)

3 federal appellate · 31 state decisions

190199720002010decided

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 Liotta v. National Forge Co. · Commonwealth v. Bowden · Commonwealth v. Henson · Commonwealth v. Cundriff · Commonwealth v. Sires

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

  1. “"As the defendant correctly recognizes, the judge possessed considerable discretion in dealing with the problem created by the prosecution's late disclosure of the ... evidence. When the ground for a continuance or exclusion of evidence involves late disclosure by the prosecution, without any showing of bad faith on its part (as is the case here), a defendant is required to show material prejudice from the disclosure before a new trial can be considered " (emphasis supplied).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[W]ithout any showing of bad faith on [the prosecution's] part (as is the case here), a defendant is required to show material prejudice from the disclosure before a new trial can be considered.”
    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.