Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 957 SW2D 246 - Blades v. Commonwealth

Blades v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 2017

11 state decisions

50199720002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Commonwealth v. Benham · Commonwealth v. Sawhill · Sanborn v. Commonwealth · Trowel 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Although proof beyond a reasonable doubt is necessary to convict of a criminal offense, the proof required ... to corroborate an extrajudicial confession need not be such that, independent of the confession, would establish the corpus delicti or Appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and that proof of the corpus delicti ... may be established by considering the confession as well as the corroborating evidence.”); Cotton v. State, 675 So.2d 308, 313 (Miss.1996) (”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom are sufficient for a jury conviction of a misdemeanor [or felony] offense,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “proof of the corpus delicti . . . may be established by considering the confession as well as the corroborating evidence.”
    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.