Ernst v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
50
cited by 50 later decisions
2
states following
April 2019
most recently cited
50 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · United States v. Young · Hamling v. United States · Jones v. United States · United States v. Gaudin
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.
“Appellant never objected to the admission of any of this testimony at trial, much less requested a limiting admonition. We have held that such admonitions are required only `upon request' and that the failure to request an admonition is generally regarded as trial strategy. Certainly, we would not expect a trial judge to sua sponte admonish the jury to give a limiting effect to evidence to which there was no objection. The failure to give an unrequested limiting admonition is not palpable error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“it is more likely than ordinary error to have affected the judgment.”
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.