Commonwealth v. Berrigan’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Northeast Women's Center, Inc. v. McMonagle (1989), Commonwealth v. Harris (1997)
2 federal appellate · 35 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 42 U.S.C. § 2011 (Atomic Energy Act of 1954)
Relies on Irvin v. Dowd · Illinois v. Allen · Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia · Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California Riverside County · Cox v. State of New Hampshire
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that the actor was faced with a public disaster that was clear and imminent, not debatable or speculative; (2) that the actor could reasonably expect that the actions taken would be effective in avoiding the immediate public disaster; (3) that there is no legal alternative which will be effective in abating the immediate public disaster; (4) that no legislative purpose exists to exclude the justification from the particular situation faced by the actor.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]here trial courts perceive a threat to the orderly administration of justice in their courtrooms by an unmanageable public, they may always place reasonable restrictions on access to the courtroom, so long as the basic guarantees of fairness are preserved[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The [defendants] ... brought to the attention of the trial judge that a multitude of demonstrators or people had gathered on the steps outside the courthouse. [They] feared that this scene could be extremely intimidating upon prospective jurors who had to pass through these lines to gain entrance into the courthouse. Extremely disturbing incidents were occurring in front of the courthouse among police, demonstrators, and visitors. The police were having a difficult time controlling the people. On one occasion some fifteen (15) persons were arrested on charges of disorderly conduct. It was reported to the trial judge that a press person had been violently handled and his camera seized and thrown to the floor of a car. And the [defendants], understandably agitated from the events that were swirling about them, were having difficulty comporting themselves in the quiet, dignified, and measured manner which is essential to the conduct of a fair and impartial trial in our courts. They often allowed themselves to become disorderly and tumultuous. They repeatedly disrupted the proceedings by walkouts, demonstrations, singing, refusal to acknowledge the court, physical acts of defiance, persistent disregard of court rulings and verbal attacks upon prospective jurors. When spectators were in the courtroom, they, too, joined in the tumultuous and anarchistic behavior of the [defendants].”
1 later decision 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.