Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 294 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Crowder v. Commonwealth.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Crowder v. Commonwealth Anchor | green | “a reviewing court does not 'ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” | 113 |
| 2 | Riner v. Com. | green | “we must instead ask whether 'any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt,” | 66 |
| 3 | Kelly v. Commonwealth | green | “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” | 64 |
| 4 | Van Andre Beasley v. Commonwealth of Virginia | green | “in the light most favorable to the commonwealth, as we must since it was the prevailing party” | 38 |
| 5 | Crowder v. Commonwealth | green | “does not 'ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” | 8 |
| 6 | Boyd v. County of Henrico | green | “under basic principles of appellate review, we may not go beyond the record developed in the trial court.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.