Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 189 VA 411 - Butler v. Commonwealth

Butler v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
11
states following
November 2004
most recently cited

39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently November 2004 · most notably Schecter v. Killingsworth (1963), Prillaman v. Commonwealth (1957)

39 state decisions — followed in 11 states

1701949195019601970198019902000decided

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 Prichard v. Battle · Commonwealth v. Ellett · Thompson v. Smith · Hannabass v. Ryan · Anglin v. Joyner

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

  1. ““The question as to whether the revocation of a license because of an act for which the licensee has been convicted or because of the conviction itself is an added punishment has frequently been before the courts. The universal holding is that such a revocation is not an added punishment, but is a finding that by reason of the commission of the act or the conviction of the licensee, the latter is no longer a fit person to hold and enjoy the privilege which the State had theretofore granted to him under its police power. The authorities agree that the purpose of the revocation is to protect the public and not to punish the licensee.” Prichard v. Battle, 178 Va. 455 , 17 S.E.2d 393, 395 . See also Butler v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 411 , 53 S.E.2d 152 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Upon any reasonable ground appearing in the records of the Division, the Commissioner may, when he deems it necessáry for the safety of the public on the highways of this State, and after notice and hearing as hereinbefore provided, suspend or revoke for a period not to exceed five years, and not reissue during the period'of suspension or revocation, the operator’s or chauffeur’s- license of any person who is a violator of the provisions of the . Motor Vehicle Codé, as amended, and he may suspend or revoke for a like period, and not reissue during the period of suspension or revocation, any or all of his registration certificates and registration plates for any motor vehicle.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““1. He [the Commissioner] must deem the suspension or revocation of the operator’s license ‘necessary for the safety of the public on the highways of this State.’ 2. The ground upon which the conclusion of the Commissioner is based, — that the safety of the public will be jeopardized unless the license is suspended, — must appear ‘in the records of the Division’ of Motor Vehicles. 3. The ground of suspension must be ‘reasonable’, both as to the necessity therefor and the duration thereof.””
    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.