Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 43 Va. App. 636 - Waters v. Commonwealth

43 Va. App. 636 - Waters v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
June 2013
most recently cited

1 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Rakas v. Illinois · Delaware v. Van Arsdall

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

  1. “frequently true in criminal cases that evidence inadmissible against one defendant is admissible against another. The exclusionary rule, for example, may bar the Government from introducing evidence against one defendant because that evidence was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. And the suppression of that evidence may result in an acquittal. The same evidence, however, may be admissible against other parties to the crime “whose rights were [not] violated.””
    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.