Commonwealth v. Mussoline’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 1995
15 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 Remington v. United States · House v. Swope · Fisher v. Dye · State v. Thomas · Shanks v. State
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘Mere proof that a criminal defendant shares a blood type with that of samples found near the crime scene is legally irrelevant to show that the defendant was in fact present at the scene of the crime without some additional, independent evidence tending to show either (1) that the man who committed the crime did lose blood in the process or (2) that the defendant was present at the scene. In short, blood-type evidence such as this can only be used to corroborate other evidence of the defendant’s whereabouts at the crucial time.’ (Emphasis in original)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Elix v. State“[w]henever the condition of a particular . .. thing at a certain time is in question, evidence of its condition at a . . . subsequent time is inadmissible, unless there is accompanying proof that it had not changed in the meantime.”
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.