Commonwealth v. Pagels’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Latimore · Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc. v. Blankenship · Commonwealth v. Saferian · Opinions of the Justices to the House of Representatives · Mickens v. Taylor
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whoever, directly or indirectly, willfully ... threatens, or attempts or causes physical injury[ ] [or] emotional injury ... to ... or ... intimidates or harasses another person who is ... a witness or potential witness at any stage of a criminal ... trial or other criminal proceeding of any type ... shall be punished.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The assessment whether the defendant made a threat is not confined to a technical analysis of the precise words uttered[;] ... the jury may consider the context in which the allegedly threatening statement was made and all of the surrounding circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the two offenses are related because they represent a series of events involving the same two individuals and stemming from the[same] incident”
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.