58 Va. App. 35 - Scott v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 state decisions

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

1. ““When the language of a statute is unambiguous, we are bound by the plain meaning of that language. Furthermore, we must give effect to the legislature’s intention as expressed by the language used unless a literal interpretation of the language would result in a manifest absurdity. If a statute is subject to more than one interpretation, we must apply the interpretation that will carry out the legislative intent behind the statute.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Keyon Damont Carrington v. Commonwealth of Virginia · 59 Va. App. 770 - Sierra v. Commonwealth

2. “A. It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.). * * * * * * (a) Any person who violates this section with respect to any controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II of the Drug Control Act shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. (b) Any person other than an inmate of a penal institution as defined in § 53.1-1 or in the custody of an employee thereof, who violates this section with respect to a controlled substance classified in Schedule III shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (b1) Violation of this section with respect to a controlled substance classified in Schedule IV shall be punishable as a Class 2 misdemeanor. (b2) Violation of this section with respect to a controlled substance classified in Schedule V shall be punishable as a Class 3 misdemeanor. (c) Violation of this section with respect to a controlled substance classified in Schedule VI shall be punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 59 Va. App. 770 - Sierra v. Commonwealth

3. “We review the trial court’s sentence for abuse of discretion. Valentine v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 334, 339 , 443 S.E.2d 445, 448 (1994). Given this deferential standard of review, we will not interfere with the sentence so long as it “ ‘was within the range set by the legislature’ ” for the particular crime of which the defendant was convicted. Jett v. Commonwealth, 34 Va.App. 252, 256 , 540 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2001) (quoting Hudson v. Commonwealth, 10 Va.App. 158, 160-61 , 390 S.E.2d 509, 510 (1990)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 63 Va. App. 175 - Raheem Chabezz Johnson v. Commonwealth of Virginia