Commonwealth v. Bertini’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Bell v. Wolfish · Schmerber v. State of California · Target Corp. v. Hollister · 133 S. Ct. 1958 - Maryland v. King · Commonwealth v. Trigones
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the taking of a buccal swab itself, without more, is not a substantial bodily intrusion warranting interlocutory review under G. L. c. 211, § 3.... While the taking of a buccal swab implicates 'the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures,' ... it is, without more, not so significant an intrusion as to render the intrusion irreparable through the normal process of appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“any harm resulting from the evidentiary use to which the swabs might be put is [also] fully remediable on appeal.”
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.