Combs v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently January 2025
16 state decisions
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 Bandy v. United States · Mills v. Commonwealth · Johnson v. Commonwealth · Kimbrough v. Commonwealth · Houston 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) A person is guilty of unlawful transaction with a minor in the first degree when he or she knowingly induces, assists, or causes a minor to engage in: (a) Illegal sexual activity; or (b) Illegal controlled substances activity other than activity involving marijuana, synthetic drugs, or sal-via, as defined in KRS 218A.010; Except those offenses involving minors in KRS Chapter 581 [pornography] and in KRS 529.100 [human trafficking] where that offense involves commercial sexual activity. (2) Unlawful transaction with a minor in the first degree is a: [[Image here]] (b) Class B felony if the minor so used is less than sixteen (16) years old at the time the minor engages in the prohibited activity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t is well-settled law within the Commonwealth that a "jury is presumed to follow an admonition to disregard evidence; thus, the admonition cures any error".... Moreover, "[t]here are only two circumstances in which the presumptive efficacy of an admonition falters: (1) when there is an overwhelming probability that the jury will be unable to follow the court's admonition and there is a strong likelihood that the effect of the inadmissible evidence would be devastating to the defendant; or (2) when the question was asked without a factual basis and was inflammatory or highly prejudicial."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although a prosecution is for a violation of a different statutory provision from a former prosecution, it is barred by the former prosecution under the following circumstances: (1) ... a determination that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a conviction, and the subsequent prosecution is for: (a) An offense of which the defendant could have been convicted at the first prosecution.... KRS 505.040.”
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.