Blankenship v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2009
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
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 Douglas v. People of State of California · Dann v. Johnston · Fallen v. United States · Savings Bank v. Ward · McIntosh 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under RCr 11.42(6) a trial court conducting a hearing to vacate sentence must make findings on all material issues of fact. Such findings are required if there is to be meaningful appellate review. ... However, the trial court’s failure to do so does not constitute reversible error. There was no specific request by Blankenship for a finding on that issue as required by CR 52.04, which we conclude is applicable to proceedings under RCr 11.-42. See, RCr 13.04; Hord v. Commonwealth, Ky., 450 S.W.2d 530 (1970).”
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.