Commonwealth v. Sealy’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
17 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (§ 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Davis v. Alaska · United States v. Nixon · Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · Douglas v. Alabama · Darden v. Wainwright
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'establish good cause, satisfied by showing "(1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general 'fishing expedition.' " '”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[a] defendant must first comply with the threshold requirements of Mass.R.Crim.P. 17(a)(2), as elucidated in [ Commonwealth v.] Lampron , [ 441 Mass. 265 , 269 (2004) ].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A defendant must make a 'plausible showing' of alleged bias, with a factual basis for support”
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.