Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 554 SW2D 380 - Edwards v. Commonwealth

Edwards v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
states following
May 2010
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2010

1 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

11019771980199020002010decided

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 Kentucky Power Company v. Kilbourn · Henderson v. Commonwealth · Gill v. Commonwealth · Richards v. Commonwealth · Newsome v. Commonwealth

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

  1. ““. . . Although the foregoing discussion disposes of this allegation of error, we feel compelled to point out for the benefit of counsel that the introduction of proof of insanity by a defendant does not place a burden on the Commonwealth to prove him sane; rather, it entitles the defendant to an instruction to the jury that they may find him not guilty by reason of insanity, and thus properly makes the issue of insanity a matter for the jury’s determination.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental illness or retardation, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “that the credibility of every witness presented to testify in a legal proceeding, including expert witnesses, is subject to attack and cross-examination, this being the primary means by which trial counsel can attempt to persuade jurors of the weight or significance to be attached to the testimony of the witnesses. . . .”
    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.