Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 243 Va. 1 - Hubbard v. Commonwealth

Hubbard v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
1
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Combs v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. (1998), Jones v. Ford Motor Co. (2002)

63 state decisions

320199220002010decided

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 Bottoson v. Florida · Stockton v. Commonwealth · King v. Commonwealth · Hatcher v. Commonwealth · Spruill 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““All of the authorities agree that contributory negligence has no place in a case of involuntary manslaughter [and] if the criminal negligence of the [accused] is found to be the cause of the death, [he] is criminally responsible, whether the decedent’s failure to use due care contributed to the injury or not.” Only if the conduct of the deceased amounts to an independent, intervening act alone causing the fatal injury can the accused be exonerated from liability for his or her criminal negligence.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he rule is that `where an accused unsuccessfully objects to evidence which he considers improper and then on his own behalf introduces evidence of the same character, he thereby waives his objection, and we cannot reverse for the alleged error.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Where the defense is that the killing was an accident or suicide, the defendant is not required to prove this fact. The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not accidental or by suicide. If after considering all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt whether the killing was accidental or suicidal or intentional, then you shall find the defendant not guilty.”
    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.