12 Va. App. 7 - Perkins v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently November 2019 · most notably 18 Va. App. 840 - Woolfolk v. Commonwealth (1994), 14 Va. App. 391 - Jackson v. W. (1992)
50 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 Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Kolender v. Lawson · Steffel v. Thompson
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Maye v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 48 , 189 S.E.2d 350 (1972) the Supreme Court of Virginia stated: A claim that a statute on its face contains no requirement of mens rea or scienter is no ground for holding the statute unconstitutional since such requirement will be read into the statute by the court when it appears the legislature implicitly intended that it must be proved. 213 Va. 48, 49 , 189 S.E.2d 350, 351 (1972).... Therefore, § 18.2-83 can be read as requiring mens rea. Such a narrowing construction of this statute prevents overbreadth. Only an individual who maliciously “makes and communicates ... any threat” prohibited by the statute will be punished.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Any person who uses obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or makes any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threatens any illegal or immoral act with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, over any telephone or citizens band radio, in this Commonwealth, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““A threat, in the criminal context, is recognized to be a communication avowing an intent to injure another’s person or property. The communication, taken in its particular context, must reasonably cause the receiver to believe that the speaker will act according to his expression of intent.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.