7 Va. App. 269 - Cantrell v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 96 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably 26 Va. App. 1 - Archer v. Commonwealth (1997), 27 Va. App. 505 - Marable v. Commonwealth (1998)
2 federal appellate · 96 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 Katz v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Benton v. Maryland · Mincey v. Arizona
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When considering the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal of a criminal conviction, we must view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and accord to the evidence all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. The jury’s verdict will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is not required to disprove every remote possibility of innocence, but is, instead, required only to establish guilt of the accused to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The trial court’s decision to grant the nolle prosequi motion was out of concern for the possible “taint” on the indictment. The trial court did not want to “sit here for three or four days ... trying the case that might be reversed for this particular reason____” We do not address, nor do we decide, whether any alleged defect in the original indictment was waived. The trial judge’s decision to grant the nolle prosequi was for good cause shown and within his discretion. Had the trial court not granted the motion, undoubtedly we would be faced today with the issue whether the “tainted” indictment requires dismissal.”
1 later decision 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.