Commonwealth v. Hock’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably Gilles v. Davis (2005), Startzell v. City of Philadelphia (2008)
5 federal appellate · 76 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 Miller v. California · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Gooding v. Wilson · Lewis v. City of New Orleans · Karis v. Karis
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he offense of disorderly conduct is not intended as a catchall for every act which annoys or disturbs people; it is not to be used as a dragnet for all the irritations which breed in the ferment of a community. It has a specific purpose; it has a definitive objective, it is intended to preserve the public peace; it has thus a limited periphery beyond which the prosecuting authorities have no right to transgress any more than the alleged criminal has the right to operate within its clear outlined circumference.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage“In evaluating an accused’s entitlement to pre-trial habeas corpus relief, a trial court must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case that the defendant committed the crime with which he or she is charged. See generally Commonwealth v. Rachau, 670 A.2d 731 , 733 n. 5 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996) (citing Commonwealth v. Kowalek, 436 Pa.Super. 361, 364 , 647 A.2d 948, 949 (1994)). The Commonwealth has the burden to show probable cause that the defendant committed the offense. Id. An appellate court must generally consider whether the record supports the trial court’s factual findings, and whether the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those findings are free of error. See Commonwealth v. Besch, 544 Pa. 1 , 2 n. 1, 674 A.2d 655 , 655 n. 1 (1996); Commonwealth v. Gordon, 546 Pa. 65, 73 , 683 A.2d 253,257 (1996).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“§ 5503. Disorderly conduct. (a) Offense defined. — A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: [...] (4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor. [...] (c) Definition. — As used in this section the word “public” means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public.”
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.