Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 56 Va. App. 178 - Brown v. Commonwealth

56 Va. App. 178 - Brown v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
November 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · 20 Va. App. 133 - Sandoval v. Commonwealth · 38 Va. App. 375 - Wactor v. Commonwealth · 39 Va. App. 96 - Davis v. Commonwealth · Bateman 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““When considering a challenge that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient, we ‘presume the judgment of the trial court to be correct’ and reverse only if the trial court’s decision is ‘plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.’” Baylor v. Commonwealth, 55 Va.App. 82, 86, 683 S.E.2d 843, 845 (2009) (quoting Davis v. Commonwealth, 39 Va.App. 96, 99 , 570 S.E.2d 875, 876-77 (2002)). “We do not ‘substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact.’ ” Id. (quoting Wactor v. Commonwealth, 38 Va.App. 375, 380 , 564 S.E.2d 160, 162 (2002)). “Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 [ 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 ] (1979). “This familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Id.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “If any person wrongfully and fraudulently use, dispose of, conceal or embezzle any money, bill, note, check, order, draft, bond, receipt, bill of lading or any other personal property, tangible or intangible, which he shall have received for another or for his employer, principal or bailor, or by virtue of his office, trust, or employment, or which shall have been entrusted or delivered to him by another or by any court, corporation or company, he shall be guilty of embezzlement.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “If any person forge a public record, or certificate, return, or attestation, of any public officer or public employee, in relation to any matter wherein such certificate, return, or attestation may be received as legal proof, or utter, or attempt to employ as true, such forged record, certificate, return, or attestation, knowing the same to be forged, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.”
    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.