Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 495 Pa. 158 - Commonwealth v. Tate

Commonwealth v. Tate’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

105
cited by 105 later decisions
9
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 84 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Cologne v. Westfarms Associates (1984), Commonwealth v. Blystone (1988)

6 federal appellate · 84 state decisions

59019811990200020102020decided

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

Applies 44 U.S.C. § 1910 · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)

Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Roth v. United States · Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · Grayned v. City of Rockford

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

  1. ““... It is well settled that a state may provide through its constitution a basis for the rights and liberties of its citizens independent from that provided by the federal Constitution, and that the rights so guaranteed may be more expansive than their federal counterparts.” Commonwealth v. Tate, 495 Pa. 158, 169 , 432 A.2d 1382, 1387 (1981).”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “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....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Even when an owner of private property is constitutionally obligated to honor speech and assembly rights of others, private property rights themselves must nonetheless be protected. The owner of such private property, therefore, is entitled to fashion reasonable rules to control the mode, opportunity and site for the individual exercise of expressional rights upon his property. (footnote omitted) It is at this level of analysis—assessing the reasonableness of such restrictions—that weight may be given to whether there exist convenient and feasible alternative means to individuals to engage in substantially the same expressional activity.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.