Haymon v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 2010
9 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 42 Cal. App. 3d 852 - People v. Reaves · Lovelace 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Commonwealth contends that possession of a weapon involves its use; that the intent of the General Assembly was to deter the involvement or presence of weapons in the commission of crimes. Admittedly, the word “use” is subject to such a construction. On the other hand, the General Assembly took pains to distinguish between being “armed” with a weapon and the “use of a weapon” in the burglary statute. The offense can be committed by one who is only “armed” with a deadly weapon but when dangerous instruments are involved there must be a showing of their use or threatened use. The movant contends, therefore, that mere possession of a weapon constitutes being “armed” with a weapon but “use” of a weapon contemplates that it be employed in some manner in the commission of an offense. This too is a plausible explanation of the meaning of the word “use.” We conclude that the phrase “use of a weapon” as it is used in K.R.S. 533.060(1) is ambiguous in that it is subject to two entirely different but nevertheless logical interpretations. It is not possible to determine which meaning the General Assembly intended to be given to the phrase “use of a weapon” and for that reason the movant is entitled to the benefit of the ambiguity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When a person has been convicted of an offense or has entered a plea of guilty to an offense classified as a Class A, B, or C felony, and the commission of the offense involved the use of a weapon from which a shot or projectile may discharge that is readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, the person shall not be eligible for probation, shock probation, or conditional discharge....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ware v. Commonwealth“[t]he power to grant probation is not inherent in the courts but is conferred by the legislature.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.