Harris v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

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

1. “[w]hen we know the object of a statute and are called upon to construe a phrase or a sentence which, standing alone, may be susceptible of different interpretations, we know of no safer rule than to take the statute by its four corners and critically examine it as a whole to ascertain the legislative intent, as manifested by its different provisions. If, upon such an examination, an interpretation can be made, consistent with the language used, which will carry into effect the object sought to be accomplished by the statute, that interpretation should be adopted, in preference to one which would be equally consistent with the language used, standing alone, but which would defeat, or tend to defeat, the manifest intent of the legislature.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 57 Va. App. 58 - Grafmuller v. Commonwealth · 50 Va. App. 285 - Gibson v. Commonwealth

2. “`statutes are not to be construed by strict and critical adherence to technical grammatical rules, and ... the true meaning, if clearly ascertained, must prevail, though contrary to the apparent grammatical construction.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Washington v. Com.

3. “the provisions of this act shall not be construed to prevent any person from manufacturing for his domestic consumption at his home ... wine or cider from fruit of his own raising....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Potts v. Ctr. for Excellence in Higher Educ., Inc.