Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 186 VA 775 - Meade v. Commonwealth

Meade v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
June 1982
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 1982

11 state decisions

4019471950196019701980decided

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 John Stein v. William Bowman · Bassett v. United States · Elliott v. Commonwealth · People v. Ernst · Davis 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In criminal cases husband and wife shall be allowed, and, subject to the rules of evidence governing other witnesses, may be compelled to testify in behalf of each other, but neither shall be compelled, nor, without the consent of the other, allowed to be called as a witness against the other except in the case of a prosecution for an offense committed by. one against the other, or against the child, father, mother, sister or brother of either of them. * * *””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It was a well-known rule of the common law that neither husband nor wife was a competent witness in a criminal action against the other, except in eases of personal violence, the one upon the other, in which the necessities of justice compelled a relaxation of the rule. ... We do not doubt the power of the legislature to change this ancient and well-supported rule; but an intention to make such a change should not lightly be imputed. It cannot be assumed that it is indifferent to sacred things, or that it means to lower the holy relations of husband and wife to the material plane of simple contract. So, before any departure from the rule affirmed through the ages of the common law,—a rule having its solid foundation in the best interests of society,—can be adjudged, the language declaring the legislative will should be so clear as to prevent doubt as to its intent and limit. ’ ’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Professor Wigmore in his excellent work on Evidence, 3rd Ed., Vol. VIII, page 221 et. seq., vigorously attacks the privileges granted by the common law rule and the reasons upon which the rule is based. We are not, however, called upon to pass upon the reasons for the rule, or the wisdom of the law. A lack of good reason may be ground for the legislature to change the law; but we must construe the law as it is.””
    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.