Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 33 Va. App. 413 - Griffin v. Commonwealth

33 Va. App. 413 - Griffin v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
3
states following
April 2017
most recently cited

14 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Collins v. Youngblood · California Department of Corrections v. Morales · Beazell v. State of Ohio Chatfield · De Veau v. Braisted · 6 Cal. 3d 28 - People v. Satchell

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

  1. “resulted from an act which was an integral part of the felony or an act in direct furtherance of or necessitated by the felony”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Additionally, any ambiguity between the juvenile protections under Code § 16.1-308 and possession of a firearm by certain persons convicted as juveniles under Code § 18.2-308.2 must be resolved in favor of Code § 18.2-308.2. “When one statute speaks to a subject in a general way and another deals with a part of the same subject in a more specific manner, the two should be harmonized, if possible, and where they conflict the latter prevails.” Thomas v. Commonwealth, 244 Va. 1, 23 , 419 S.E.2d 606, 618 (1992) (citation omitted). Here, Code § 18.2-308.2, which applies to adult felons and juveniles of a certain age convicted of acts that would be felonies for adults, is the more specific statute and prevails over the general statute concerning collateral disabilities for convicted juveniles.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The [felony-murder] doctrine was developed to elevate to murder a homicide committed during the course of a felony by imputing malice to the killing. The justification for imputing malice was the theory that the increased risk of death or serious harm occasioned by the commission of a felony demonstrated the felon’s lack of concern for human life----The purpose of the doctrine was to deter inherently dangerous felonies by holding the felons responsible for the consequences of the felony, whether intended or not.”
    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.