Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 186 VA 453 - Moore v. Commonwealth

Moore v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
January 2004
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 2004

9 state decisions

301947195019601970198019902000decided

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 Nunnelley's Administrator v. Muth · Powell v. Commonwealth · Fore v. State · Parsons v. Commonwealth · Wallen v. Commonwealth

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

  1. “[p]atience is a virtue that well adorns a judge, adds to his respect from bar and public, and aids in creating an atmosphere becoming to a forum where [people] bring their disputes for judicial determination. But, as we said in [Parsons , while impatience is regrettable, judges continue to be [human] and do not cast aside all human imperfections when they ascend the bench. To warrant reversal, their error must be more than mere impatience; it must be of such character as to result in prejudice and prevent a fair trial. It would be that kind, of course, if it caused the jury to become prejudiced against the accused, or influenced them in weighing the evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““* * Motions for new trials based on this ground are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and are awarded with great reluctance and with special care and caution. The evidence must (1) appear tó have been discovered since the trial; (2) be such that in the exercise of reasonable diligence on the part of the applicant it could not have been secured at the former trial; (3) not be merely cumulative, corroborative or collateral; and (4) be material in its objects, and such as on another trial ought to produce opposite results on the merits. Burks Pleading and Practice, 4 ed., Motions After Verdicts, § 324, p. 602.””
    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.