Foure v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1926
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently February 2004 · most notably Perdue v. Commonwealth (1996), St. Clair v. Commonwealth (2004)
3 federal appellate · 38 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 Allen v. Commonwealth · Gillis v. Commonwealth · Bradley v. Commonwealth · Foure v. Commonwealth · Mount 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Gillis had been convicted a second time under this indictment and his appeal was pending at the time of this trial. He was introduced as a witness for defendant and on cross-examination was required to answer that he had been convicted of a felony, although it- was shown that an appeal was then pending in his case. While in a proper case a , witness may be impeached by asking him as to his being convicted for a felony, here this was error for two reasons: First — The Code provisions (section 597, Civil Code), authorizing such impeachment, refers to a judgment of conviction, which of course means the final judgment. Ordinarily, this refers to the judgment of the circuit court, but an appeal in a criminal case suspends the judgment, and this does not become final until a termination of the appeal. If the witness’case is reversed and on final trial he should be acquitted, it will not be contended that on a subsequent trial he could be impeached by showing such conviction, and during the pendency of the appeal it cannot be determined what the final judgment will be. Second. — -The effect of this evidence was to show that another jury had found Gillis guilty of the same offense here charged, which was quite prejudicial to appellant’s substantial rights.””
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.