Mitchell v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1929
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
April 1933
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Johnston v. Commonwealth · Hayes v. Commonwealth · Stacey v. Commonwealth · Ochsner v. Commonwealth · Renaker 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In Decker v. Commonwealth, 195 Ky. 64 , 241 S. W. 817 , we said: ‘In view of the situation thus presented by the record the rule in Wright v. Commonwealth, 155 Ky. 750 ( 160 S. W. 476 ), and Renaker v. Commonwealth, 172 Ky. 714 ( 189 S. W. 928 ), would seem to apply, which substantially declares that in order to permit an appellant to take advantage on appeal of error committed by the trial court in failing to admonish the jury to consider testimony only for a certain purpose, it must be made to appear from the record that the attention of the trial court was called at the time to the necessity for such admonition or the court requested to give it, neither of which was done here.’ “To the same effect are the cases of McCarty v. Commonwealth, 216 Ky. 110 , 287 S. W. 363 , and Anderson v. Commonwealth, 205 Ky. 369 , 265 S. W. 824 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.