Commonwealth v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently September 2003 · most notably Commonwealth v. Kichline (1976), Commonwealth v. Musi (1979)
68 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 Commonwealth v. McCusker · Commonwealth v. Graves · Commonwealth v. Amos · Commonwealth v. Hornberger · Commonwealth v. Finnie
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It must be determined first if the inference sought to be raised by the evidence bears upon a matter in issue in the case and, second, whether the evidence `renders the desired inference more probable than it would be without evidence.'"”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[t]he testimony that appellant endeavored to elicit — that gang shootings had been frequent during the weeks preceding the deceased’s death, that members of street gangs often carried deadly weapons into their battles, and that appellant himself had been once hospitalized by gang fighting — was relevant to establish the ferocity with which gangs clashed and therefore to raise an inference that panic and fear could be evoked by an incipient gang war. We hold that in excluding evidence of gang activity in appellant’s neighborhood, the trial court withheld from the jury evidence of vital probative value to a determination of the defendant’s state of mind.” Id. 461 Pa. at 282 , 336 A.2d at 286 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Absence of the intent required for a particular degree of a crime, of course, precludes a conviction of that crime, although it may still be proper to convict of a lesser degree of the crime or of some included offense which does not require that intent. For at least a century we have held that a defendant may introduce evidence to prove factors existing prior to the homicide from which it may be inferred that at the time of the homicide he lacked the intent required for a conviction of murder in the first degree.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.