Commonwealth v. Charlett’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently December 2008 · most notably In Re B. (1978), Commonwealth v. Marcone (1980)
35 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 Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Bloom v. Illinois · One Lot Emerald Cut Stones One Ring v. United States · Samuel Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Company
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Discovery of the Court's dominant purpose requires a functional analysis of the court's action. . . . Basically, the reviewing court must decide whether the citing court's purpose was to `vindicate the dignity and authority of the court and to protect the interest of the general public.' Such citation is for criminal contempt. If the citation's purpose is to coerce the contemnor into compliance with the order of the court to do or refrain from doing some act primarily for the benefit of a litigant or a private interest the citation is for civil contempt." (citations omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) The rights to bail that are accorded to persons accused of crime. (2) The right to be notified of the accusation and a reasonable time to make a defense, if the alleged contempt is not committed in the immediate view or presence of the court. (3) (i) Upon demand, the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the judicial district wherein the contempt is alleged to have been committed. (ii) The requirement of subparagraph (i) shall not be construed to apply to contempts: (A) committed in the presence of the court or so near thereto as to interfere directly with the administration of justice, or to apply to the misbehavior, misconduct, or disobedience of any officer of the court in respect to the writs, orders, or process of the court; or (B) subject to 75 Pa.C.S. § 4108(c) (relating to nonjury criminal contempt proceedings). (4) The right to file with the court a demand for the withdrawal of the judge sitting in the proceeding, if the alleged contempt arises from an attack upon the character or conduct of such judge, and if the attack occurred otherwise than in open court. Upon the filing of any such demand, the judge shall thereupon proceed no further but another judge shall be designated by the court. The demand shall be filed prior to the hearing in the contempt proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“1. Where the complainant is a private person as opposed to the government or a governmental agency; 2. Where the proceeding is entitled in the original injunction action and filed as a continuation thereof as opposed to a separate and independent action; 3. Where holding the defendant in contempt affords relief to a private party; 4. Where the relief requested is primarily for the benefit of the complainant; 5. Where the acts of contempt complained of are primarily civil in character and do not of themselves constitute crimes or conduct by the defendant so contumelious that the court is impelled to act on its own motion.”
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.