Commonwealth v. Boyle’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 107 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Commonwealth v. Baker (1992), Commonwealth v. Miller (1995)
4 federal appellate · 107 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Santoni v. United States · Walder v. United States · Berger v. United States · Harrison 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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A jurist's impartiality is called into question whenever he has doubts as to his ability to preside objectively and fairly in the proceeding or where there exists factors or circumstances that may reasonably question the jurist's impartiality in the matter. Commonwealth v. Perry, 468 Pa. 515 , 364 A.2d 312 (1976); Commonwealth v. Goodman, 454 Pa. 358 , 311 A.2d 652 (1973).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[t]he fact that [the defendant] exercised his right of silence during the second trial did not insulate him from the consequences of his earlier testimony. It has long been recognized that testimony from an earlier trial may be introduced in the prosecution's case against a defendant regardless of whether that defendant takes the stand or not in the second proceeding.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A defendant] cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself, but if he gives it voluntarily he cannot object to having it used against him. His constitutional privilege, as far as that testimony is concerned, is waived, and cannot be reclaimed in any subsequent trial of the same indictment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.