49 Va. App. 17 - Tynes v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “any similar hearsay evidence” during his case in chief), aff'd on other grounds, 268 Va. 296 , 601 S.E.2d 555 (2004); Brant v. Commonwealth, 32 Va.App. 268, 278 , 527 S.E.2d 476, 480-81 (2000) (holding no waiver for cross-examination). 5 . Code § 8.01-678 makes “harmless-error review required in all cases.” Ferguson v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. ix , ix, 396 S.E.2d 675, 675 (1990) (emphasis in original and text in parenthetical to statutory citation); Walker v. Commonwealth, 144 Va. 648, 652 , 131 S.E. 230, 231 (1926) (holding that the harmless error statute”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 56 Va. App. 158 - Asfaw v. Commonwealth · 55 Va. App. 647 - Ray v. Commonwealth

2. “Absent a proffer showing harm was done, we are forbidden to consider the question----This is because a proffer allows us to examine both the admissibility of the proposed testimony, and whether, even if admissible, its exclusion prejudiced the proffering party.... We can perform this examination only when the proponent proffers the testimony he expected to elicit, rather than merely his theory of the case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 58 Va. App. 66 - Cortez-Hernandez v. Commonwealth