Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 37 Va. App. 9 - Sabol v. Commonwealth

37 Va. App. 9 - Sabol v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
2
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

13 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Higginbotham v. Commonwealth · 12 Va. App. 476 - Campbell v. Commonwealth · Sutton v. Commonwealth · 5 Va. App. 529 - Johnson v. Commonwealth · 30 Va. App. 406 - Clark 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “As used in the statute, threat means expression of an intention to do bodily harm. Intimidation may occur without threats. Intimidation, as used in the statute, means putting a victim in fear of bodily harm by exercising such domination and control of her as to overcome her mind and overbear her will. Intimidation may be caused by the imposition of psychological pressure on one who, under the circumstances, is vulnerable and susceptible to such pressure.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Evidence that appellant pushed L.D. down the hall toward the bedroom to accomplish the fall 1990 rape was sufficient proof of the use of force to overcome her will. As the trial court found when ruling on the motion to strike: If you consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth in this case, you have non-consensual acts that were committed against the victim, and force is present even though it may not be so great as to cause bodily harm. She testified that [during] one of the incidents he was pushing her down the hallway against her will towards the bedroom, that none of it was done with her consent, that she held her body in such a way that he could not get as close to her as he otherwise could, and that she demanded that he not do it.... The record here supports the jury’s finding of guilt on one warrant. While appellant pushed L.D. down the hall, he said she “had to take care of him.” Although L.D. expressed her hatred of him, appellant ignored her statements and continued to push her toward the bedroom and the bed. This evidence supports a finding that appellant used force to overcome the victim’s will. We cannot say that the “jury’s verdict ... is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.””
    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.