Clark v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 state decisions

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

1. “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Burchett v. Commonwealth · Leach v. Commonwealth

2. “Although it is not required that the facts be identical in all respects, 'evidence of other acts of sexual deviance ... must be so similar to the crime on trial as to constitute a so-called signature crime.' " Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 174 S.W.3d 451 , 469 (Ky. 2005) (quoting Rearick v. Commonwealth, 858 S.W.2d 185 , 187 (Ky. 1993) ). This Court has further stated, "conduct that serves to satisfy the statutory elements of an offense will not suffice to meet the modus operandi exception. Instead, the modus operandi exception is met only if the conduct that meets the statutory elements evidences such a distinctive pattern as to rise to the level of a signature crime.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Leach v. Commonwealth · White v. Com. of Ky.

3. “[A]s a prerequisite to the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence, we now require the proponent of the evidence to 'demonstrate that there is a factual commonality between the prior bad act and the charged conduct that is simultaneously similar and so peculiar or distinct that there is a reasonable probability that the two crimes were committed by the same individual.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Leach v. Commonwealth · Colvard v. Commonwealth