Anderson v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the case of a sexually active adult who claims to be the victim of rape, medical findings that she frequently engages in intercourse would not be probative of the crime charged. However, in the case of a female child who is presumed not to be sexually active, and with whom any sexual contact is prohibited, a medical finding of frequent sexual activity establishes the relevance of evidence that the perpetrator is one other than the person charged. [[Image here]] Omission of the evidence concerning the ongoing sexual activity between the complaining witness and her brother was devastating to appellant in light of the testimony of the examining physician who expressed findings of chronic sexual contact and, without objection, identified appellant as the guilty party. The possibility that the victim had engaged in ongoing sexual conduct with her sibling was not revealed to the physician during his examination and interview of the victim. This revelation may have caused the physician to qualify or omit his branding of appellant as the assailant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Ten Broeck Dupont, Inc. v. Brooks

2. “Therefore, testimony from a doctor that C.S.B. had a “loose vaginal opening” would lead the jury to believe that Appellant must have been the one who penetrated C.S.B. and caused her vaginal opening to be loose. Therefore, under Barnett , it appears that the evidence of the victim’s past sexual encounter is relevant to provide an explanation for why she had a loose vaginal opening, and rebut the inference of guilt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ten Broeck Dupont, Inc. v. Brooks

3. “1) The length of delay; 2) Whether there have been any previous continuances; 3) The inconvenience to the litigants, witnesses, counsel, and the court; 4) Whether the delay is purposeful or caused by the accused; 5) The availability of competent counsel, if at issue; 6) The complexity of the case; and 7)Whether denying the continuance would lead to any identifiable prejudice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. Commonwealth