Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 23 Va. App. 614 - Waldrop v. Commonwealth

23 Va. App. 614 - Waldrop v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
February 2000
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Griffin v. California · Cleveland v. United States · Higginbotham v. Commonwealth · 6 Va. App. 172 - Traverso v. Commonwealth · Cable 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “neither raised the expectation in the jury's mind that appellant would testify nor challenged the jury to notice and possibly draw an inference from whether or not appellant testified”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “prohibits `the prosecutor's use of any language or other device which compels a defendant to testify.'”
    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.