Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 973 SW2D 13 - Tamme v. Commonwealth

Tamme v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
3
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

73 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Commonwealth v. English (1999), Mills v. Commonwealth (1999)

73 state decisions

490199820002010decided

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 Barker v. Wingo · North Carolina v. Alford · Giglio v. United States · Davis v. Alaska · Gregg v. Georgia

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

  1. “Jury instructions at the sentence stage of a capital trial need not include any particular words or phrases to define the concept of mitigation or the function of mitigating circumstances.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Any attempt to suppress a witness' testimony by the accused, whether by persuasion, bribery, or threat, or to induce a witness not to appear at the trial or to swear falsely, or to interfere with the processes of the court is evidence tending to show guilt.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “exceptions expressly listed in KRE 404(b)(1), i.e., motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or the absence of mistake or accident, the resolution is obvious. However, the listed”
    2 later decisions 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.