Commonwealth v. May’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Commonwealth v. Miller (1995), Commonwealth v. Saranchak (1996)
3 federal appellate · 52 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 Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer · City of Hazleton v. City Council · Zettlemoyer v. Pennsylvania · Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Anthony
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Confidential communications between spouses Except as otherwise provided in this sub-chapter, in a criminal proceeding neither husband nor wife shall be competent or permitted to testify to confidential communications made by one to the other, unless this privilege is waived upon the trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The test for determining whether a prospective juror should be disqualified is whether he is willing and able to eliminate the influence of any scruples and render a verdict according to the evidence, and this is to be determined on the basis of answers to questions and demeanor.... It must be determined whether any biases or prejudices can be put aside on proper instruction of the court.... A challenge for cause should be granted when the prospective juror has such a close relationship, familial, financial, or situational, with the parties, counsel, victims, or witnesses that the court will presume a likelihood of prejudice or demonstrates a likelihood of prejudice by his or her conduct or answers to questions.... The decision on whether to disqualify is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed in the absence of a palpable abuse of discretion”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We wish to state clearly that in reaching this conclusion, our decision should not be interpreted as a finding that the aggravating circumstance (the killing was committed during the commission of a felony) is not supported by sufficient evidence. Rather, we emphasize that our conclusion is based on the rationale that the jury erred in considering the wrong felony to support its finding that the killing was committed during the commission of a felony. In fact, we cannot ‘review' the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of rape since the Commonwealth never attempted to present such evidence or prove the crime of rape.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Commonwealth v. May
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.