Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 29 Va. App. 261 - Bennett v. Commonwealth

29 Va. App. 261 - Bennett v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
January 2009
most recently cited

18 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand · LeVasseur v. Commonwealth · Spencer v. Commonwealth · Cheng v. Commonwealth · 12 Va. App. 476 - Campbell 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Virginia law recognizes two tests by which an accused can establish criminal insanity, the M'Naghten Rule and the irresistible impulse doctrine.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Additionally, a court’s failure to take any action in response to an improper question is relevant to determining prejudice because the jury may infer from such inaction that the court approved of the impropriety. Lewis v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 80, 84 , 175 S.E.2d 236, 238 (1970) (finding the defendant suffered no prejudice from the improper admission of testimony and a statement by the prosecutor where the court expressly disapproved of the improper remarks with a cautionary instruction).... The number of references to an error is also relevant to our consideration of whether prejudice influenced the jury. Ward [v. Commonwealth], 205 Va. [564,] 574, 138 S.E.2d [293,] 300 [ (1964) ] (“In this instance, the first error was compounded by the second and it would be hard to blot the information from the minds of a jury.”).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In a long line of cases, spanning almost thirty years, [the Supreme Court of Virginia has] made clear that polygraph examinations are so thoroughly unreliable as to be of no proper evidentiary use whether they favor the accused, implicate the accused, or are agreed to by both parties. The point of these cases is that the lie-detector or polygraph has an aura of authority while being wholly unreliable.”
    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.