Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 15 Va. App. 163 - D'Alessandro v. Commonwealth

15 Va. App. 163 - D'Alessandro v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
November 2010
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently November 2010

16 state decisions

80199220002010decided

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 In Re Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections · School Board v. Caudill Rowlett Scott, Inc. · Lamb v. Commonwealth · 10 Va. App. 317 - Russnak v. Commonwealth · 11 Va. App. 671 - Owusu 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[i]f a person has been sentenced for a felony ... the court which heard the case, if it appears compatible with the public interest and there are circumstances in mitigation of the offense, may, at any time before the person is transferred to the Department [of Corrections], suspend or otherwise modify the unserved portion of such a sentence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In order to toll the time limitations of Rule 1:1 and Rule 5A:6(a), it is not sufficient for the trial judge merely to express a desire to consider action or take the issue under advisement; rather, the trial judge must issue an order modifying, vacating or suspending the [order] unthin twenty-one days of the entry of [the order].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Neither the filing of post-trial or post-judgment motions, nor the court’s taking such motions under consideration, nor the pendency of such motions on the twenty-first day after final judgment is sufficient to toll or extend the running of the 21-day period prescribed by Rule 1:1----””
    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.