Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 10 Va. App. 283 - Johns v. Commonwealth

10 Va. App. 283 - Johns v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 2016

2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

60199020002010decided

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 4 Va. App. 433 - Mounce v. Commonwealth · Johnson v. Commonwealth · Jones v. Commonwealth · Davis v. Commonwealth · 158 Tex. Crim. 252 - Trevino v. State

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

  1. “Where a store owner invites the public to enter his premises he consents for the entrant to view his merchandise for the limited purpose of purchase, or to otherwise engage in a lawful activity thereon. It is not the will of the owner that entrance be made to defraud or steal from him.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “`[i]t would be an impeachment of the common sense of mankind to say that... a thief who enters the store with intent to steal does so with the owner's consent and upon his invitation.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[w]e agree[d] ... that the bank ... did not authorize, invite or consent to Johns' entry for the purpose of committing robbery.”
    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.