Commonwealth v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2021 · most notably United States v. Dixon (1993), 344 Pa. Super. 108 - Commonwealth v. Williams (1985)
83 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 Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Brown v. Ohio · Missouri v. Hunter
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Upon violation of a protection order issued under this act ... the court may hold the defendant in indirect criminal contempt and punish him in accordance with the law. (b) Notwithstanding any provision of the law to the contrary any sentence for this contempt may include imprisonment up to six months or a fine not to exceed $1,000 or both ... The defendant shall not have a right to a jury trial on such a charge; however, the defendant shall be entitled to counsel. (g) A hearing on a charge or allegation of indirect criminal contempt shall not preclude a hearing on other criminal charges underlying the contempt, nor shall a hearing on other criminal charges preclude a hearing on a charge of indirect criminal contempt.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““We hold, therefore, that under the Blockburger test, indirect criminal contempt and simple assault do contain the requisite ‘separate elements’ and vindicate different interests. Therefore, prosecution on the substantive criminal charge after a finding of contempt in violating the injunction against abuse does not violate double jeopardy.” (emphasis added) Id. at 514 , 486 A.2d at 370 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“defendant could have willfully violated the court order by any number of actions,”
2 later decisions 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.