Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 550 SW2D 525 - Kimbrough v. Commonwealth

Kimbrough v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2018 · most notably Maupin v. Smith (1986), Trowel v. Commonwealth (1977)

9 federal appellate · 33 state decisions

13019771980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Webster v. Commonwealth · Columbia Gas of Kentucky, Inc. v. Maynard

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

  1. “[b]y offering their own evidence, defendants waived their motion for a directed verdict made at the close of plaintiffs' evidence and, in order to preserve the question of the sufficiency of the evidence for appellate review, they were required to renew this motion at the close of all the evidence.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the evidence is insufficient to sustain the burden of proof on one or more, but less than all, of the issues presented by the case, the correct procedure is to object to the giving of instructions on those particular issues. ... The appropriate procedure here would thus have been for appellant, at the close of the evidence and before the instructions were given, to apprise the trial court that he objected to the giving of [the first-degree unlawful imprisonment instruction] for the reason that [the crime] had not been sufficiently proven.”
    2 later decisions 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.