Underhill v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2009
2 federal appellate · 6 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 Williams v. Commonwealth · Blair v. Commonwealth · Clatos v. Commonwealth · Strader v. Commonwealth · Ex parte Mote
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Court instructs the jury that the witness, Eddie Lamb, according to the testimony in this case, was an accomplice in the commission of the crime charged. The jury is instructed that a conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of Eddie Lamb alone, unless the jury believe that his testimony in the opinion of the jury has been corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendants, or either of them with the commission of the offense.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We the jury find * * * guilty and recommend the minimum sentence of 21 years * * (Italics supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smyth v. Bunch
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.