Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 475 Pa. 331 - Commonwealth v. Martinez

Commonwealth v. Martinez’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
1
states following
April 2013
most recently cited

72 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably Commonwealth v. Edmiston (1993), Commonwealth v. Coccioletti (1981)

72 state decisions

44019771980199020002010decided

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 United States v. Agurs · Taylor v. Louisiana · Commonwealth v. Clair · Commonwealth v. Yount · Commonwealth v. Petrakovich

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

  1. “"This case is therefore governed by our recent decision in Commonwealth v. Jones, 465 Pa. 473 , 350 A.2d 862 (1976). There appellant challenged an array of jurors chosen solely from voter registration lists on the theory that such a method of selection resulted in systematic racial discrimination. We found, however, that appellant had not shown that "the list itself reflects discriminatory practices." Id., 465 Pa. at 480 , 350 A.2d at 866 . Similarly, although the motivation of those who chose to use voter lists was not relevant to appellant's claim of unrepresentativeness, appellant here was at least required to show the extent to which the voter list reflected exclusion of the poor. This he has not done and accordingly his claim must fail." (Id., 475 Pa. at 334-335 , 380 A.2d 749 ).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The reasons for requiring specific objection after the charge, even where points for charge had previously been proposed are apparent. Primarily it ensures that the court is given opportunity to avoid error. See Commonwealth v. Sisak, 436 Pa. 262, 269 , 259 A.2d 428, 432 (1969). Here, as is so often the case, the court gave some of the requested instructions in modified form. Additional corrections might very well have avoided error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “involves weighing the necessarily inflammatory nature of this evidence against its `essential evidentiary value.'”
    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.