Armstrong v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
128 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Riner v. Com. (2004), Murphy v. Commonwealth (2002)
128 state decisions
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 Bouie v. City of Columbia · United States v. Lanier · Rogers v. Tennessee · 494 So. 2d 1251 - State v. Rogers · Ansell 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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an unreasonably restrictive interpretation of the statute”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[I]n order to sustain a conviction for possessing a firearm in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2, the evidence need show only that a person subject to the provisions of that statute possessed an instrument which was designed, made, and intended to expel a projectile by means of an explosion. It is not necessary that the Commonwealth prove the instrument was “operable,” “capable” of being fired, or had the “actual capacity to do serious harm.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`instrument that gives the appearance of having a firing capability.'”
5 later decisions 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.