Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 190 VA 531 - Hampton v. Commonwealth

Hampton v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1950

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
June 2012
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2012 · most notably Greenfield v. Commonwealth (1974), Bassett v. Commonwealth (1981)

3 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

1001950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Haley v. Ohio · Bridges v. State of California Times-Mirror Co · Malinski v. People of State of New York · Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee · Burford 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Under the rule in most jurisdictions an application for a change of venue in a criminal case on the ground of local prejudice rendering impossible an impartial trial is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and it is the consensus of opinion that the law presumes that a defendant can get a fair and impartial trial in the county in which the offense was committed; in order to overcome this presumption the burden is upon the defendant to show clearly that he cannot have such a fair and impartial trial. Before a court is justified in sustaining an application therefor on account of the prejudice of the inhabitants of the county it must affirmatively appear that there is such a feeling of prejudice prevailing in the community as will be reasonably certain to prevent a fair and impartial trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is to be rigidly and jealously guarded. Yet, in its protection and enforcement, it must not be so enlarged as to exceed its true scope and thereby made to include all inquiry into and consideration of purely legal matters by the trial judge which are in fact and reality merely careful and prudent preparation for the resumption and conduct of the trial.”
    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.