38 Va. App. 206 - Watts v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the party that prevailed below, and grant to its evidence “all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom.” Giles v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 527, 532 , 507 S.E.2d 102, 105 (1998) (citation omitted). In addition, we review the trial court’s findings of historical fact only for “clear error,” but we review de novo the trial court’s application of defined legal standards to the particular facts of a case. See Ford v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 249, 255 , 503 S.E.2d 803, 805 (1998); see also Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 700 , 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 40 Va. App. 480 - Cary v. Commonwealth

2. “[T]he Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent. That is to say, the term “interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. The latter portion of this definition focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect rather than the intent of the police.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 82 Va. Cir. 196 - Commonwealth v. Harris