Smith v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
April 1999
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on North Carolina v. Alford · 6 Va. App. 172 - Traverso v. Commonwealth · 10 Va. App. 87 - Josephs v. Commonwealth · Hohl ex rel. Hohl v. Miller · Spruill 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We see no reason why the signed stipulation of facts that accompanied Williams’s plea should be viewed as anything other than Williams’s admission to the events that transpired during the consummated drug sale. Importantly, the trial court is permitted to “make such use of [the writing] for the purpose of the trial as it may think best.” The record demonstrates that the stipulation of facts was submitted in compliance with Code § 19.2-268.1. After the stipulation’s submission, appellant’s counsel had the opportunity to elicit Williams’s version of the facts. Thereafter, it was within the province of the jury to determine Williams’s veracity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.