Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 920 SW2D 526 - Commonwealth v. Ramsey

Commonwealth v. Ramsey’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
6
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2024

22 state decisions

1001996200020102020decided

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 O'Bryan v. Commonwealth · Bell v. Commonwealth · Jones v. Commonwealth · Rearick v. Commonwealth · Division of Driver Licensing, Department of Vehicle Regulation, Transportation Cabinet v. Bergmann

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. “[T]he Commonwealth maintains ... without the introduction of the prior DUI’s, the Commonwealth will be limited to proving a misdemeanor which is outside the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction. The Commonwealth has misconstrued the issue of jurisdiction. Once a defendant is indicted on a felony charge, the Circuit Court has jurisdiction. West v. Commonwealth, Ky., 887 S.W.2d 338 (1994); Nicholas v. Thomas, Ky., 382 S.W.2d 871 (1964). Secondly, the Commonwealth asserts that since the result ... will net only a misdemeanor conviction the Circuit Court will be left with out authority to bifurcate the proceeding. Once a guilty verdict is reached, the Circuit Court has the authority to conduct a penalty phase, pursuant to KRS 532.055, in which the prior convictions may be introduced and the appropriate sentence determined ....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible: (1) If offered for some other purpose, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
    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.