Robertson v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 127 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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Of course a party cannot be guilty of contempt of court for disobeying an order which the court had no authority of law to make, but if a court has jurisdiction of the parties and legal authority to render the order, then it must be obeyed even though it was erroneous or improvidently entered.”

   20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Edwards v. Vesilind · 46 Va. App. 161 - Epps v. Commonwealth

2. ““A litigant’s attendance upon the trial may be compelled by the issuance and service upon him of a subpoena under Code § 6217, as amended by Acts 1940, c. 159, as is the case with any other witness. But a party to a civil suit, as well as any other witness, who is present in court may, of course, be called upon to testify although he may not have been served with a subpoena. “The same principle applies to subpoenas issued under Code, §§ 6219 and 6237. While under these sections a witness or an adverse party may be compelled to appear and bring with him material documentary evidence, should the witness or party be present in court and have in his custody the desired document, he may be lawfully compelled by the verbal direction of the court to produce it although no subpoena has been issued therefor.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wolff v. Capital Transit Co.

3. “A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, relative to the subject matter of the civil action, without such writing being shown to him.... This section is subject to the qualification, that in an action to recover for a personal injury or death by wrongful act or neglect, no ex parte affidavit or statement in writing other than a deposition, after due notice, of a witness and no extrajudicial recording of the voice of such witness, or reproduction or transcript thereof, as to the facts or circumstances attending the wrongful act or neglect complained of, shall be used to contradict him as a witness in the case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gray v. Rhoads