Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 258 Va. 54 - Walker v. Commonwealth

Walker v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

95
cited by 95 later decisions
1
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 78 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Porter v. Com. (2008), Johnson v. Commonwealth (2000)

10 federal appellate · 78 state decisions

730199920002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · United States v. Cronic · Patterson v. New York

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

  1. “[t]he willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of more than one person within a three-year period.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The 'finding' that exposes the defendant to the death penalty is that of future dangerousness, or alternatively, vileness, which by statute must be supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See Code § 19.2-264.4(C).... [Conversely, the Commonwealth] need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact it recognizes as a circumstance affecting the severity of punishment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Swisher’s motion. The indictment adequately informed Swisher of the charged offenses, and we are of opinion Swisher did not wish to use the bill to challenge the sufficiency of the indictment, but, as he had admitted in his brief, he desired the bill of particulars for other reasons.”
    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.