Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 VA 578 - Burnette v. Commonwealth

Burnette v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1939

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
December 2008
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2008

8 state decisions

4019391940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Bliss v. Beck

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

  1. ““It is well settled that the testimony of a witness may be impeached by showing that he was intoxicated at the time of the occurrence of events about which he testified. (Citations omitted.) However, intoxication only bears upon his capacity for accurate observation and correct memory. Generally, the admissibility of the testimony of such a witness is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Burnette v. Commonwealth, 172 Va. 578, 579 , 1 S.E.2d 268, 269 (1939).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A witness is not rendered incompetent by the fact that he was drunk on the occasion as to which he is called to testify, or is drunk at the time of giving his testimony, unless his condition is such that he is unable to narrate facts and events in a way to be relied on, and it is for the trial court in its discretion to determine whether or not his testimony should be received.”
    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.