Weishaupt v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Such of [English common law] doctrines and principles as are repugnant to the nature and character of our political system, or which the different and varied circumstances of our country render inapplicable to us, are either not in force here, or must be so modified in their application as to adapt them to our condition.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Miller & Smith, Inc. v. Thompson · Shirley v. Shirley

2. “The actual English common law rule, if applied directly to the facts of this case, would require us to reverse Weishaupt’s conviction. But such a direct application is not possible. Before English common law can be applied in Virginia, it must be analyzed in light of Code § 1-10 and the cases interpreting that code section. According to the code, English common law cannot be applied if it is “repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.” Nor can it be applied if it is “altered by the General Assembly.” In addition to the statutory provision, Foster v. Commonwealth, 96 Va. 306 , 31 S.E. 503 (1898), sets forth yet another limitation on the use of English common law. In Foster , we considered the predecessor to Code § 1-10. We stated that though the statute, aside from its express limitations, appears to adopt English common law “generally, and without a qualification,” this is not in fact the case. 96 Va. at 309 , 31 S.E. at 504 . The true rule is this: “Such of [English common law] doctrines and principles as are repugnant to the nature and character of our political system, or which the different and varied circumstances of our country render inapplicable to us, are either not in force here, or must be so modified in their application as to adapt them to our condition.” 96 Va. at 330 , 31 S.E. at 505 (emphasis added). Thus, by statute and case law, we are free, in essence, to adopt from English common law those principles that fit our way of life an”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Costello v. Frederick County Sanitation Authority

3. “"[A] wife can unilaterally revoke her implied consent to marital sex where ... she has made manifest her intent to terminate the marital relationship by living separate and apart from her husband; refraining from voluntary sexual intercourse with her husband; and, in light of all the circumstances, conducting herself in a manner that establishes a de facto end to the marriage. And, once the implied consent is revoked, even though the parties have not yet obtained a divorce, the husband can be found guilty of raping his wife, if the evidence against him establishes a violation of Code § 18.2-61." Id. at 405, 315 S.E.2d at 855 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kizer v. Commonwealth