Taylor v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably State v. Lynch (2004), Bowling v. Commonwealth (1997)
8 federal appellate · 18 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 Bruton v. United States · Chambers v. Mississippi · Bourjaily v. United States · United States v. Katsougrakis · United States v. Kelley
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ejvery material detail of [the statement] was corroborated by independent testimony and physical evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A state ment tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The prosecution was not given reasonable notice. . . . Accordingly without reasonable notification the Commonwealth could not present evidence in support of its opposition to the motion by subpoenaing witnesses to testify or otherwise prepare to contest the motion. (citation omitted). Therefore the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by denying the motion.”
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.