Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 24 Va. App. 415 - Mills v. Commonwealth

24 Va. App. 415 - Mills v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
July 2008
most recently cited

11 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand · LeVasseur v. Commonwealth · Levasseur v. Wainwright · Beavers v. Commonwealth · Cato v. Morales

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

  1. “"[T]he admission of incompetent evidence is reversible error notwithstanding the fact that the trial court, after its admission, instructed the jury to disregard it, if such illegal evidence was so impressive that it probably remained on the minds of the jury and influenced their verdict." "If the prejudicial effect of the impropriety cannot be removed by the instructions of the trial court, the defendant is entitled to a new trial." Whether a manifest probability exists that the improper evidence prejudiced the accused despite the cautionary instruction depends upon the nature of the incompetent evidence when considered in relation to the nature of the charges, the other evidence in the case, and manner in which the prejudicial evidence was presented.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he admission of incompetent evidence is reversible error notwithstanding the fact that the trial court, after its admission, instructed the jury to disregard it, if such illegal evidence was so impressive that it probably remained on the minds of the jury and influenced their verdict.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[a]lthough evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming, we cannot say that the prejudicial evidence did not affect the length of the sentences or the amount of fines that the jury recommended and the judge imposed.”
    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.