Stark v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
17
cited by 17 later decisions
3
states following
January 2004
most recently cited
3 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Ashe v. Swenson · Montgomery v. Commonwealth · Stanford v. Commonwealth · Walden v. Commonwealth
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“knowingly and unlawfully committed the offense of Robbery in the First Degree when in the course of committing theft, he threatened the immediate use of a deadly weapon, namely a gun, upon [the victim], with the intent to accomplish a theft of personal funds from [the victim] in the back office of the Kentucky Farm Bureau Agency in Hickman, Kentucky.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“committed the offense of Robbery in the First Degree, by threatening the immediate use of physical force upon Moby Dick Restaurant. . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The next assertion of error states that four counts of the indictment wMch charge robbery in the first degree of a place or a business entity fail to state an offense. Count 12 provided: COUNT TWELVE That on or about the 23rd of April, 1989, in Jefferson County, Kentucky, ... William Ray Stark, Jr., committed the offense of Robbery in the First Degree, by threatening the immediate use of physical force upon Moby Dick Restaurant, ... while armed with a gun, and in the course of committing a theft. * * * ⅜ ⅜ * The indictment was void since the correct test is whether the indictment states a public offense. The indictment, on Counts 12, 23, 26 and 36, does not support a conviction for robbery in the first degree because it fails to state a vital fact that the robbery was committed upon a person.”
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.