Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 492 Pa. 600 - Commonwealth v. Hude

Commonwealth v. Hude’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

102
cited by 102 later decisions
3
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

102 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Commonwealth v. Hude (1983), Commonwealth v. Smith (1988)

102 state decisions

55019801990200020102020decided

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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Berger v. United States · Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland · Green 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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Although a prosecution is for violation of a different provision of the statutes than a former prosecution or is based on different facts, it is barred by such former prosecution under the following circumstances: (1) . . . . (2) the former prosecution was terminated, after the indictment was found, by an acquittal or by a final order or judgment for the defendant which has not been set aside, reversed or vacated and which acquittal, final order or judgment necessarily required a determination inconsistent with a fact which must be established for conviction of the second offense.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) An identification of the issues in the two actions for the purpose of determining whether the issues are sufficiently similar and sufficiently material in both actions to justify in invoking the doctrine; (2) an examination of the record of the prior case to decide whether the issue was ‘litigated’ in the first case;- and (3) an examination of the record of the prior proceeding to ascertain whether the issue was necessarily decided in the first case.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “... examine the record of [the] prior proceeding, taking into account the pleadings, evidence, charge, and other relevant matter, and conclude whether a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration.”
    4 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.