27 Va. App. 293 - Moses v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 30 Va. App. 470 - Santillo v. Commonwealth (1999), 54 Va. App. 21 - Harper v. Commonwealth (2009)
30 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 Schmerber v. State of California · Roviaro v. United States · California v. Green · Williams v. People of State of New York · Pennsylvania v. Ritchie
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Every act of the legislature is presumed to be constitutional, and the Constitution is to be given a liberal construction so as to sustain the enactment in question, if practicable.” Bosang v. Iron Belt Bldg. & Loan Ass’n, 96 Va. 119, 123 , 30 S.E. 440, 441 (1898). “When the constitutionality of an act is challenged, a heavy burden of proof is thrust upon the party making the challenge. All laws are presumed to be constitutional and this presumption is one of the strongest known to the law.” Harrison v. Day, 200 Va. 764, 770 , 107 S.E.2d 594, 598 (1959).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Defendant next contends that the Commonwealth’s refusal to identify all its sources violated her right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has stated “the right to confrontation is a trial right, designed to prevent improper restrictions on the types of questions that defense counsel may ask during cross-examination.” Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 52 , 107 S.Ct. 989, 999 , 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (citing California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 157 , 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1934-35 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970)). In Ritchie , the defendant was denied access during pretrial discovery to investigative files which contained statements by the victim and information about witnesses. The Court concluded the Sixth Amendment was not offended because a defendant has no right to confront witnesses outside of trial. See Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 849 , 110 S.Ct. 3157, 3165-66 , 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990) (‘“the Confrontation Clause reflects a preference for face-to-face confrontation at trial’ ”); Goins v. Commonwealth, 251 Va. 442, 456 , 470 S.E.2d 114, 124 (1996). Therefore, application of the Confrontation Clause to the post-trial sentencing proceedings is inappropriate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]his broad rule of inclusion is tempered by the requirement that the information bear some indicia of reliability.”
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.