Hinton v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently May 2010 · most notably 37 Cal. 3d 136 - People v. Ramos (1984), Stamper v. Commonwealth (1979)
3 federal appellate · 44 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 Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirtz · Jones v. Commonwealth · Coward v. Commonwealth · Wansley v. Commonwealth · McCann 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under our system, the assessment of punishment is a function of the judicial branch of government, while the administration of such punishment is a responsibility of the executive department. The aim of the rule followed in Virginia is to preserve, as effectively as possible, the separation of those functions during the process when the jury is fixing the penalty, in full recognition of the fact that the average juror is aware that some type of further consideration will usually be given to the sentence imposed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[s]ometimes people never serve their entire sentence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he jury's question would have been necessary only if one or more of the jurors contemplated voting for a sentence less than the maximum; the inquiry would have been superfluous if the jury had already decided to assess [the maximum penalty]. Thus, as a result of the improper emphasis on post-verdict procedures... it [is] likely that some member of the jury, influenced by the improper remarks, agreed to fix the maximum penalty, when he or she otherwise would have voted for a lesser sentence. Consequently, prejudice to the defendant is manifest.”
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.