Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 279 Va. 64 - Murillo-Rodriguez v. Com.

Murillo-Rodriguez v. Com.’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
October 2017
most recently cited

20 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Bunch v. Commonwealth · Chawla v. BurgerBusters, Inc. · 12 Va. App. 476 - Campbell v. Commonwealth · Inge v. Commonwealth · Rawle v. McIlhenny

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

  1. “[W]hen a defendant elects to introduce evidence in his own behalf after the denial of a motion to strike the Commonwealth’s evidence, any further challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence at trial or on appeal is to be determined from the entire record, because by putting on additional evidence, the defendant waives his ability to challenge the sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s evidence in isolation....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[T]he Court of Appeals has consistently applied [this] concept of waiver to require a defendant who elects to introduce evidence in his defense after the denial of a motion to strike the Commonwealth’s evidence to reassert in some fashion a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence as a whole after the record is complete, and if he fails to do so, he waives his ability to raise that issue on appeal. This concept of waiver is so well established in the jurisprudence of the Court of Appeals that its application has primarily been confined to unpublished memoranda opinions and, as in this case, orders refusing petitions for appeal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “nothing more than a straightforward application of the contemporaneous objection rule. "The primary purpose of requiring timely and specific objections is to allow the trial court an opportunity to rule intelligently on the issues presented, thereby avoiding unnecessary appeals and reversals.... If a party fails to make a timely objection, the objection is waived for purposes of appeal."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.