Commonwealth v. Cocke’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
February 2016
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Musselman v. Commonwealth · Commonwealth v. Foley · Hatchett v. City of Glasgow
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]bsent a requirement that the actor’s alteration, damage or destruction must occur without authorization, the [Kentucky statute at issue] literally permits the prosecution of an authorized user for an alteration as innocuous and innocent as the deletion of an e-mail message.”); Azar , 539 So,2d at 1224-26 (no mens rea requirement applicable to the element of”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Stotz
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.