Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 193 VA 449 - Hundley v. Commonwealth

Hundley v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
3
states following
January 2013
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably Jones v. Commonwealth (1967), Lane v. Commonwealth (1982)

3 federal appellate · 54 state decisions

1401952196019701980199020002010decided

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 State v. Sisneros · District of Columbia v. Buckley · People v. Townsend · Perry v. Baumann · State v. Bacom

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

  1. “. . . If the same act be a violation of two or more statutes . . . conviction under one of such statutes . . . shall be a bar to a prosecution or proceeding under the other or others . . .”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is conceivable for a person under the influence of intoxicants to drive properly. Many people not under the influence of intoxicants drive recklessly. A test of the identity of acts or offenses is whether the same evidence is required to sustain them; if not, then the fact that several charges relate to and grow out of one transaction or occurrence does not make a single act or offense where two separate acts or offenses are defined by statute, as in the instant case.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[contemplates a conviction of an act. . . prohibited by two or more statutes or ordinances. If a defendant is tried and convicted under one statute or ordinance for the violation of a prohibited act or offense and a prosecution is later instituted under another statute or ordinance which covers the same act or offense, then the first conviction properly pleaded, would bar the prosecution.”
    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.