Commonwealth v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Commonwealth v. McMullen (2008), Commonwealth v. Sloan (2006)
46 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 International Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwell · Cooke v. United States · Spallone v. United States · Wortex Mills, Inc. v. Textile Workers Union of America · Crozer-Chester Medical Center v. Moran
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A charge of indirect criminal contempt consists of a claim that a violation of an order or decree of court occurred outside the presence of the court. Where a PFA order is involved, an indirect criminal contempt charge is designed to seek punishment for violation of the protective order. The role of criminal contempt and that of many ordinary criminal laws seem identical — protection of the institutions of our government and enforcement of their mandates. Thus, as with those accused with (sic) other crimes, one charged with indirect criminal contempt is to be provided the safeguards which statute and criminal procedures afford.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A trial court’s finding of contempt will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Baker, 564 Pa. 192, 198 , 766 A.2d 328, 331 (2001). An appellate court cannot find an abuse of discretion merely for an error of judgment unless, in reaching a conclusion, the trial court overrides or misapplies the law or its judgment is manifestly unreasonable. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) the order [in question] must be definite, clear, specific and leave no doubt or uncertainty in the mind of the person to whom it was addressed of the conduct prohibited; (2) the contemnor must have had notice of the specific order or decree; (3) the act constituting the violation must have been volitional; and (4) the contemnor must have acted with wrongful intent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.