Commonwealth v. Walczak’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 23 state decisions

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

1. “two meet, not intending to quarrel, and angry words suddenly arise, and a conflict springs up in which blows are given on both sides, without much regard to who is the assailant.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Grassie · Commonwealth v. Howard

2. “use of the Model Jury Instructions on Homicide, modified as appropriate for use before the grand jury, to define the elements of the crime charged and set out the legal requirements of defenses or mitigating circumstances raised by the evidence will ordinarily be sufficient.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Fernandes

3. “In contrast to a reviewing court's evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence, which views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a grand jury need not view the evidence in so favorable a light in deciding probable cause.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Fernandes