Crowe v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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

1. “[Djouble hearsay is admissible only if each out-of-court statement falls within a recognized exception to the hearsay rule. KRE 805. Even though the caller’s statement to the secretary fell within the scope of KRE 803(3), there is no hearsay exception which would allow [attorney] Roberts to testify to what the secretary told her. Compare Thurman v. Commonwealth, Ky., 975 S.W.2d 888, 893 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1009 , 119 S.Ct. 1150 , 143 L.Ed.2d 217 (1999).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hampton v. Commonwealth

2. “Flora did not opine that the substance was blood; he only stated that it appeared to him to be blood, i.e., it looked like blood. His testimony was rationally based on his own perception of what he personally observed and was helpful in determining a fact in issue, viz: whether Appellant attempted to conceal the fact that there was blood inside his residence. KRE 701.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hampton v. Commonwealth

3. “[B]y evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time by the telephone company to a particular place or business if: ’ A) In the case of a person, circumstances, including self-identification, show the person answering to be the one called;”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Soto v. Commonwealth