Commonwealth v. Marcone’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
98 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably 378 Pa. Super. 474 - Sonder v. Sonder (1988), Von Hake v. Thomas (1988)
98 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 United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · Bloom v. Illinois · Offutt v. United States · Cooke v. United States
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The official misconduct of the officers of such courts respectively. (2) Disobedience or neglect by officers, parties, jurors or witnesses of or to the lawful process of the court. (3) The misbehavior of any person in the presence of the court, thereby obstructing the administration of justice.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“In keeping with the gravity of a criminal contempt, the law has long recognized the need to provide the courts with the power to impose summary punishment for such conduct in appropriate situations .... Summary action permits the court to eliminate the traditional steps involved in an adjudication .... Although this is a drastic departure from our traditional view of due process, its justification in the punishment of criminal contempt was well stated by Mr. Chief Justice Taft in Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 536 , 45 S.Ct. 390, 394 , 69 L.Ed. 767, 773 (1925): We think the distinction finds its reason not any more in the ability of the judge to see and hear what happens in the open court than in the danger that, unless such an open threat to the orderly procedure of the court and such a flagrant defiance of the person and presence of tÜe judge before the public in the “very hallowed place of justice,” as Blackstone has it, is not instantly suppressed and punished, demoralization of the court’s authority will follow ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The essence of [direct criminal] contempt is that the misconduct constitutes a direct affront to the dignity and authority of the court. . . . Where that disobedience or misbehavior occurs in the actual presence of the court or has the capacity of directly affecting the proceeding then in progress, it may be properly classified as a direct or the most grievous type of contempt. All other behavior which may have a more remote impact upon the dignity of the court and its ability to fulfill its responsibilities are classified as indirect criminal contempts.””
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.