Willing v. Mazzocone’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Commonwealth v. Tarbert (1987), Commonwealth v. Tate (1981)
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 64 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 Near v. State of Minnesota Olson · Lovell v. City of Griffin · New York Times Company v. United States · Reitman v. Mulkey · Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Pennsylvania the insolvency of a defendant does not create a situation where there is no adequate remedy at law. In deciding whether a remedy is adequate, it is the remedy itself, and not its possible lack of success that is the determining factor. “The fact, if it be so, that this remedy may not be successful in realizing the fruits of a recovery at law, on account of the insolvency of the defendants, is not of itself or ground of equitable interference.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. . . ."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“We cannot accept the Superior Court’s conclusion that the exercise of the constitutional right to freely express one’s opinion should be conditioned upon the economic status of the individual asserting that right. Conditioning the right of free speech upon the monetary worth of an individual is inconsistent not only with fundamental principles of justice developed by the Supreme Court of the United States and guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, but also violates our own constitution’s express admonitions that “[a]ll men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights ... ”, and that “[neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right.””
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.