Estes v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2006
12 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 Jett v. Commonwealth · Ice v. Commonwealth · McClellan v. Commonwealth · Commonwealth v. Sapp · Mayes v. Sowders
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person who has overheard a conversation between a husband and wife [emphasis added] is not foreclosed from testifying about it because of the husband/wife privilege. Commonwealth v. Everson, 123 Ky. 330 , 96 S.W. 460 (1906). A fortiori, here the police officer who overheard a conversation between the wife and the husband’s victim is not foreclosed from repeating what she overheard regardless of whether the contents of the conversation include confidential communications between husband and wife.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The word “communication” therefore, as used in our statute, should be given a liberal construction. It should not be confined to a mere statement by the husband to the wife or vice versa; but should be construed to embrace all knowledge upon the part of the one or the other obtained by reason of the marriage relation, and which, but for the confidence growing out of it, would not have been known to the party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent““1) A Testimonial Disqualification — A husband and wife are disqualified from giving testimony regarding ‘confidential communications between them during marriage,’ as in the former common law disqualification. 2) A Testimonial Privilege — ‘Further, neither may be compelled to testify for or against the other,’ similar to the privilege against self-incrimination.” Id. at 424 .”
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.