Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 931 SW2D 446 - Thomas v. Commonwealth

Thomas v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
October 2016
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently October 2016

22 state decisions

150199620002010decided

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 Washington v. W. C. Dawson & Co. · Hilen v. Hays · Hanks v. McDanell · Bennett v. Commonwealth · Brown 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The court in Thomas also stated: All that is necessary to “charge an offense,” as required by RCr 8.18, is to name the offense.... A lack of jurisdiction or failure to charge an offense may be raised “at anytime during the proceedings.” RCr 8.18. However, all other defects in the indictment, such as failure to comply with RCr 6.10, must be “raised only by motion before trial.” RCr 8.18.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “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.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “which has now been presented to us. But regardless of the reason for the decision in Eary , it completely misstates the Constitutional Law in Kentucky, as does the majority opinion in this case, which upholds Eary . Stare decisis is ordinarily a wise rule of action. But it is not a universal, inexorable command.”
    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.