Charles v. Com.’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
56
cited by 56 later decisions
2
states following
January 2017
most recently cited
54 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Crutchfield v. Commonwealth · Waterman v. Halverson · Cooper v. Commonwealth · Royster v. Smith · Conner 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]pplication of the ends of justice exception is appropriate when the judgment of the trial court was error and application of the exception is necessary to avoid a grave injustice or the denial of essential rights.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[u]nless otherwise provided by statute ... Rule 1:1 prohibits the modification of a final order more than 21 days after the date of entry.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Com. · Com. v. Morris“The General Assembly has enacted various exceptions to this policy, [including] Code § 19.2-303 (court may modify unserved portion of sentence at any time before defendant is transferred to Department of Corrections) [and] Code § 8.01-428 (court may modify final order in certain listed circumstances)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Com. v. Morris
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.