29 Va. App. 1 - Moss v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
February 2009
most recently cited
12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Higginbotham v. Commonwealth · 18 Va. App. 840 - Woolfolk v. Commonwealth · Burnette 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“such offending articles innately burglarious in character, [that is] those commonly used by burglars in house breaking or safe cracking[,]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“That being said, I recognize that the mere possession of "any tools, implements, or outfit" is not prohibited by [Code § 18.2-94]. Such articles "may be, and usually are, designed and manufactured for lawful purposes." The gravamen of the offense arises from the possessor's "intent to use" these "common, ordinary" objects for a criminal purpose specified by statute, burglary, robbery or larceny.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If any person have in his possession any tools, implements or outfit, with intent to commit burglary, robbery or larceny, upon conviction thereof he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. The possession of such burglarious tools, implements or outfit by any person other than a licensed dealer, shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to commit burglary or larceny.”
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.