Musselman v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably Commonwealth v. Reneer (1987), Eubanks v. Wilkinson (1991)
4 federal appellate · 23 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 Kolender v. Lawson · Gooding v. Wilson · Ashton v. Kentucky · Hatchett v. City of Glasgow · United States v. Sturgill
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We reject the argument that a criminal statute facially unconstitutional can be `authoritatively construed' by the courts to render it constitutional, if this is taken to mean the court can introduce an additional concept not present in the statute as written by the Legislature." Musselman v. Commonwealth, Ky., 705 S.W.2d 476, 478 (1986).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"But where a statute on its face is intelligible, the courts are not at liberty to supply words or insert something or make additions which amount, as sometimes stated, to providing for a casus omissus, or cure an omission, however just or desirable it might be to supply an omitted provision." Id. at 251 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) A person is guilty of harassing communications when with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person he: (a) Communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication in a manner which causes annoyance or alarm and serves no purpose of legitimate communication; or (b) Makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication. (2) Harassing communications is a Class B misdemeanor.”
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.