Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 105 S.W.3d 415 - Flynt v. Commonwealth

Flynt v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2024

22 state decisions

110200320102020decided

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 Bordenkircher v. Hayes · Weatherford v. Bursey · St. Clair v. Roark · Bradshaw v. Ball · Allen v. Walter

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

  1. “[t]o interpret KRS 533.250(2) as permitting a trial court to approve pretrial diversion applications over the Commonwealth’s objection — and thus conferring upon circuit courts the discretionary authority that we have previously held to be within the exclusive province of the executive branch — would construe it in a manner inconsistent with Kentucky’s constitutional separation of powers provisions.(W)here the Commonwealth objects to pretrial diversion, circuit courts cannot unilaterally approve a defendant’s diversion application.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It is manifest that the prosecution of crime is an executive function and that `the duty of the executive department is to enforce the criminal laws.' Although it is beyond dispute that the executive branch's prosecutorial function includes `the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury,' it is argued in favor of Appellee Elliott's interpretation of KRS 533.250(2) that, after the grand jury returns an indictment, the disposition of a criminal matter is exclusively a judicial function. We observe, however, that this view of the scope of prosecutorial authority is contradicted not only by established understandings of this authority, but also by Kentucky statutory law and the precedent of this Court and its predecessor.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “And, because prosecutors have the sole discretion whether to engage in plea bargaining with a defendant, this court and its predecessor have held that, unless the Commonwealth consents, courts cannot: (1) accept pleas of guilty and unilaterally limit the sentences which may be imposed; (2) amend a charge prior to the presentation of evidence; or (3) dismiss a valid indictment....”
    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.