Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 160 SW3D 744 - Ernst v. Commonwealth

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.

  1. “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
  2. “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.