Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 80 SW3D 439 - Manns v. Commonwealth

Manns v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

15 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Paul v. Davis · Whalen v. Roe · Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah · Neshewat v. Hagstrom · Alford v. United States

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

  1. “exercis[ing] any power properly belonging to either of the others”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “in a place he had the right to be.” We also need not address the Commonwealth's argument that Appellant's tendered instruction was properly rejected because it did not accurately state the law. See n.2. . To the extent that ICRS 532.055(2)(a)6 purports to permit the use of a prior juvenile adjudication for impeachment purposes, we concluded in Manns that it violated Section 28 of the Kentucky Constitution and KRE 1102(b) as a”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “No adjudication by a juvenile session of District Court shall be deemed a conviction, nor shall such adjudication operate to impose any of the civil disabilities ordinarily resulting from a criminal conviction, nor shall any child be found guilty or be deemed a criminal by reason of such adjudication.”
    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.