Beaty v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
50
cited by 50 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
February 2018
most recently cited
49 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Blockburger v. United States · Davis v. Alaska · Chambers v. Mississippi · Washington v. Texas
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.
“Id. at 209 (alterations in original) (quoting 1A John Henry Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 139 (Tiller's rev. 1983)). Having already heard evidence that Ross was dating two men at the same time, that Ross was at Perkins's residence for two hours before calling for help, and that Ross knew that Perkins typically kept large amounts of cash on hand, the jury would not have been misled by additional evidence that Ross owed at least one substantial debt and had been sued over it. And given that context, I cannot conclude that Appellant's theory was”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“You will find [Appellant] guilty of Unlawful Possession of a Methamphetamine Precursor under this instruction, if and only if, you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that in Ohio County on or about February 25, 2004, and before the findings of the Indictment herein, he knowingly and unlawfully possessed ephedrine or pseu-doephedrine with the intent to use the substance as a precursor to manufacturing methamphetamine or other controlled substance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“failure to preserve this issue for appellate review should not result in permitting a double jeopardy conviction to stand”). 5 . Stamps v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 868, 868 (Ky.1983) (citing Commonwealth v. Lewis, 548 S.W.2d 509, 510 (Ky.1977); United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600 , 96 S.Ct. 1075 , 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976)); United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463, 467 , 84 S.Ct. 1587 , 12 L.Ed.2d 448 (1964) (if defendant”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.