Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 220 Ky. 771 - Commonwealth v. Duvall

Commonwealth v. Duvall’s Empirical Analysis

1927

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
November 1968
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 1968

14 state decisions

4019271930194019501960decided

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 Morse v. Commonwealth · People v. Davis · Kossakowski v. People · Hopkins v. State · Sebree 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ ‘The intent to embezzle may be manifested by various acts, such as making false entries, denial of receipts of money, not accounting when it should be done, rendering false accounts, or practicing any form of deceit, or running away with the money, or actually expending the money for defendant’s own uses contrary to his directions, or otherwise diverting the course of the money to make it his own. Furthermore, intent may be made to appear from circumstantial as well as from direct evidence.’ 9 R. C. L. p. 1279.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““When the commonwealth proved that Duvall had received this money and had thereafter reported and failed to include and account for it in that report, the proof of the crime was complete, even though he intended thereafter to account for it.””
    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.