53 Va. App. 138 - Crawford v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
January 2011
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Crawford v. Washington · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Burks v. United States · Neder v. United States
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘[In determining legal sufficiency of the evidence presented,] we consider all admitted evidence,’ without regard for whether it was properly admitted or is likely to be admitted in any subsequent retrial.” (quoting Hargraves v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 299, 312-13 , 557 S.E.2d 737, 743 (2002)) (emphasis added)), with Shiflett v. Commonwealth, 47 Va.App. 141, 145-46 , 622 S.E.2d 758, 760 (2005) (After giving deference to the factual findings of the trial court, we”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“See White v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 658, 665 , 561 S.E.2d 12, 16 (2002) (noting that although we may, under appropriate circumstances,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“through the use of the complaining witness's . . . physical helplessness”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Crawford v. Com.
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.