11 Va. App. 163 - Myatt v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
August 2012
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Crooker v. California · Massey v. Commonwealth · Dooley v. Commonwealth · 82 Ill. App. 2d 312 - People v. Abdallah · Royals 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Code § 46.2-882 provides in pertinent part: In any court or legal proceeding in which any question arises about the calibration or accuracy of any . . . radar [device] . . . used to [check] the speed of any motor vehicle, a certificate, or a true copy thereof, showing the calibration or accuracy ... of any tuning fork employed in calibrating or testing the device, and when and by whom the calibration was made, shall be admissible as evidence of the facts therein stated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In any court or legal proceeding in which any question arises about the calibration or accuracy of any radar ... device ... used to check the speed of any motor vehicle, a certificate, or a true copy thereof, showing the calibration or accuracy of the speedometer of any vehicle or any tuning fork employed in calibrating or testing the device, and when and by whom the calibration was made, shall be admissible as evidence of the facts therein stated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“While the matter has not heretofore been presented to us it is well recognized in other jurisdictions that evidence of a test of radar equipment by tuning forks in this manner is admissible as tending to prove the accuracy of the equipment. In the absence of evidence to the contrary in the present case, the trial court accepted, as it had a right to do, the evidence of [tuning fork tests] as adequate proof of the accuracy of the radar set.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Gray v. Commonwealth
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.