Gravely v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 state decisions

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

1. ““ ‘It is not necessary that the identity of stolen property should be invariably established by positive evidence. In many such cases identification is impracticable, and yet the circumstances may render it impossible to doubt the identity of the property, or to account for the possession of it by the accused upon any reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence.’ [Citation omitted].” Gravely v. Commonwealth, 86 Va. 396, 402 , 10 S.E. 431, 433 (1889).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Henderson v. Commonwealth · 20 Va. App. 353 - Lew v. Commonwealth

2. ““Applying this rule to the present case, we are of opinion that although there was not strict proof of the identity of the stolen flour, yet that in view of the nature of the article, the recency of the possession, and all the surrounding circumstances, the evidence was sufficient. At all events, it was not plainly insufficient. ‘Unless the possession be recent,’» says Starkie, ‘it is necessary to give strict proof of the identity of the goods, which is not so requisite where the possession is very recent.’ 2 Stark. Ev., 841.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kelly v. Commonwealth

3. ““Viewed in this light, the verdict must stand.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Miller v. Commonwealth