Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 266 SW3D 813 - Harp v. Commonwealth

Harp v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
7
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Miller v. Commonwealth (2009), Brown v. People (2010)

43 state decisions

360200820102020decided

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 Neder v. United States · Cohens v. Virginia · Taylor v. Kentucky · Cohens v. Virginia · Commonwealth v. Benham

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

  1. “[o]ur precedent does not support a conclusion that a trial court is required to include any identifying evidentiary detail in instructions in which a defendant is charged with only one count of an offense.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a party claiming that an erroneous jury instruction, or an erroneous failure to give a necessary jury instruction [is harmless error], bears a steep burden because we have held that “[i]n this jurisdiction it is a rule of longstanding and frequent repetition that erroneous instructions to the jury are presumed to be prejudicial; [thus,] an appellee claiming harmless error bears the burden of showing affirmatively that no prejudice resulted from the error.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[w]hether the issue is viewed as one of insufficient evidence, or double jeopardy, or denial of a unanimous verdict, when multiple offenses are chai*ged in a single indictment, the Commonwealth must introduce evidence sufficient to prove each offense and to differentiate each count from the others, and the jury must be separately instructed on each charged offense.”
    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.