Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 722 A2D 718 - Commonwealth v. Baker

Commonwealth v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
January 2021
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 2021

9 state decisions

501998200020102020decided

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 Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Brocker v. Brocker · United States v. Kelner · State v. Alston · United States v. Maxton

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(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.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “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.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Id. Similarly, in a separate dissenting opinion, Judge Orie Melvin, joined by Judge Stevens, believed that the conduct in this case amounted to a threat and to hold otherwise eviscerated the purpose and goals of the PFA. In the instant case, the analysis employed by the majority of the Superior Court is persuasive. In order to be found guilty of indirect criminal contempt, the order limiting the conduct must do so in a clear and definite manner. The Superior Court did not disregard the fact that the statement was threatening in nature, but reasoned that”
    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.