Weaver v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
September 2017
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Leonard v. Commonwealth · Mills v. Commonwealth · Berryman v. Commonwealth · Nebgen v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. · 497 So. 2d 904 - Burnham v. State
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order, or in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties, is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order unless it appears to the court that the denial of such relief would be inconsis tent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whether or not the error is deemed to be of constitutional magnitude, we cannot conclude the error was harmless because to find that the expert testimony would have little or no effect would be sheer speculation.... Further, [the expert’s] testimony was relevant to [the appellant’s] intoxication defense and potentially helpful to the jury in explaining how the specific substances ingested may have affected [the appellant’s] intent at the time of the incident.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In contrast to earlier versions of KRE 103, the current version does not require the presentation of avowal testimony to preserve the issue of a trial court's exclusion of testimony.” Weaver v. Commonwealth, 298 S.W.3d 851 , 857 fn. 12 (Ky.2009). However, the trial court, at its discretion, may direct the offer be by avowal. KRE 103(b) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.