Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 184 VA 862 - Updike v. Commonwealth

Updike v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1946

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
September 1951
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Harrison v. Commonwealth · Bristow v. Brauer · Massie v. Commonwealth · Tignor v. Virginia Electric & Power Co. · Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Williams

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

  1. “The court cannot invade the province of the jury on a motion for a new trial by attempting to pass upon the credibility of the witness, to reconcile conflicting statements, or to determine the weight to be given the evidence of each. If there are conflicts or discrepancies in the evidence, it is the jury's province to reconcile them if possible, and, if not, the jury may give credence to the witness or witnesses who in their opinion are best entitled to it.”
    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.