Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 670 SW2D 851 - Hon v. Commonwealth

Hon v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
October 2011
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2011 · most notably Parke v. Raley (1993), Montgomery v. Commonwealth (1991)

2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

1001984199020002010decided

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 Burks v. United States · Hobbs v. Commonwealth · Crawley v. Kunzman · Kendricks v. Commonwealth · Adams 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[b]ecause the persistent felony statute is so clear in its requirements, and so strictly penal in nature, we believe that it is improper for proof of an inferential nature to be used to obtain and sentence a conviction under its terms.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[ i]t is clear that the General Assembly intended that the defendant in a persistent felony offender prosecution must have been at least eighteen years old at the time the previous offenses were committed. It is equally obvious that the Commonwealth has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, every element of the charge. KRS 500.010; Adams v. Commonwealth, Ky., 551 S.W.2d 561 (1977). [[Image here]] Because the persistent felony statute is so clear in its requirements, and so strictly penal in nature, ... [w]e hold that, in a proceeding under the persistent felony offender statute, the Commonwealth must prove by direct evidence that the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time he committed the previous offenses which serve as the basis for the persistent felony offender charge.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A persistent felony offender in the second degree is a person who is more than twenty-one (21) years of age and who stands convicted of a felony after having been convicted of one (1) previous felony. As used in this provision, a previous felony conviction is a conviction of a felony in this state or conviction of a crime in any other jurisdiction provided: [[Image here]] (b) That the offender was over the age of eighteen (18) years at the time the offense was committed ... (emphasis added).”
    2 later decisions 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.