Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 777 SW2D 882 - Commonwealth v. Hubbard

Commonwealth v. Hubbard’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
4
states following
September 2012
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 2012

8 state decisions

401989199020002010decided

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 Smith v. Phillips · Young v. United States Ex Rel. Vuitton Et Fils S. A. · Hicks v. Oklahoma · Buchanan v. Kentucky · Cabana v. Bullock

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “I borrow Justice Leibson’s exact words: Before undertaking such a change we should follow our carefully conceived, established policy for rule change. This includes a study and recommendation by the Supreme Court Committee on Criminal Rules, followed by a public hearing at the Kentucky Bar Association Annual Convention, before changing the rules. I disagree, not so much with the change, but with the precipitous nature by which we have accomplished it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “When the jury returns a verdict of guilty it shall fix the degree of the offense and the penalty except that the court may fix the penalty (a) in cases where the penalty is fixed by law and (b) in cases where the court is otherwise authorized by law to fix the penalty.”
    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.