Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 234 Ky. 333 - Bennett v. Commonwealth

Bennett v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1930

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
10
states following
February 1993
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 1993 · most notably Wright v. State (1986), Adams v. State (1947)

6 federal appellate · 29 state decisions — followed in 10 states

1601930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Cummings v. Commonwealth · Bazzell v. Illinois Central Railroad · Howerton v. Commonwealth · Bailey v. Commonwealth · Johnson 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It has been often written that a prosecuting attorney should act impartially and see that justice is fairly meted out, which requires fair dealing with an accused in calling him to account for his crime. It is his duty to see that the legal rights of the accused, as well as those of the commonwealth, are fully protected; to prosecute and not persecute; to conduct himself with due regard to the proprieties of the office. He represents the people of the state, and in a degree should look after the rights of a person accused of a crime by endeavoring to protect the innocent and seeing that truth and right shall prevail.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The rule here established and the idea of immunity from disclosure, however, ought never to be extended to offers or communications made for an unlawful purpose, such as compounding a crime or obstructing justice. The interest of public justice requires that no such shield from merited exposure shall be interposed to protect a person who takes [tells] counsel how he can safely commit a crime, or endeavors to thwart the administration of justice.” (Our Emphasis).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““As to his testifying in the case, it may be said in general that, in the absence of a disqualifying interest, an attorney has always been regarded as a competent witness for his client. Nevertheless, it is a matter of delicacy and a practice not approved, except where the necessity of circumstances require his testimony. That consideration is particularly true as respects a prosecuting attorney.””
    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.