Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 10 Va. App. 237 - McGill v. Commonwealth

10 Va. App. 237 - McGill v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
2
states following
January 2020
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably 47 Va. App. 687 - George M. Epps, Sheriff of City of Petersburg, Virginia v. Commonwealth (2006), 40 Va. App. 440 - Riner v. Commonwealth (2003)

31 state decisions

1501990200020102020decided

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 Turner v. Commonwealth · Breeden v. Commonwealth · Martin v. Commonwealth · Barker v. Commonwealth · Salina v. Commonwealth

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

  1. “[a]n objection to previously introduced testimony is not waived by “the mere cross-examination of a witness or the introduction of rebuttal evidence, either or both.” A waiver does not result until the party objecting to the introduction of evidence actually introduces, on his own behalf, evidence that is similar to that to which the objection applies.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Using or permitting the use of leading questions, those which suggest a desired answer, in the voir dire of a prospective juror may taint the reliability of the juror's responses. Merely giving `expected answers to leading questions' does not rehabilitate a prospective juror.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Determination of a prospective juror’s impartiality differs from the usual factual finding. It is not the determination of a past fact; instead, it is a determination of [the prospective juror’s] present state of mind, a prediction of future behavior. For this reason, the method of the voir dire examination may affect the trial court’s ability to determine a prospective juror’s impartiality.”
    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.