128 W. Va. 655 - State v. Hudson’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently May 2004 · most notably 157 W. Va. 640 - State v. Thomas (1974), 161 W. Va. 517 - State v. Starkey (1978)
99 state decisions
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 State Ex Inf. McKittrick v. Globe-Democrat · 114 W. Va. 236 - Robertson v. Hobson · Commonwealth v. Plissner · State v. Coats · 90 W. Va. 738 - State v. Lantz
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In a criminal case proof of another offense chargeable to the defendant is admissible to show motive or intent, if such other offense is similar and near in point of time to, has some logical connection with, and tends to establish the commission of, the specific offense charged against the defendant, and indicates that such specific offense is part of a system of criminal action.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Generally the granting or the refusing of a motion for a bill of particulars is in the sound discretion of the trial court. Dale v. Atwell, 103 W. Va. 590 , 138 S. E. 201 ; State v. Joseph, 100 W. Va. 213 , 130 S. E. 451 ; Adkins v. Wayne County Court, 94 W. Va. 460 , 119 S. E. 284 ; State v. Counts, 90 W. Va. 338 , 110 S. E. 812 ; State v. Lewis, 69 W. Va. 472 , 72 S. E. 475 . It is within the discretion of the court whether a bill of particulars is sufficient, or whether in fact a bill of particulars should be required. State v. Koski, 101 W. Va. 477 , 133 S. E. 79 . Denial of a motion to require the State to supply a bill of particulars in a criminal case is not cause for reversal by the appellate court unless it clearly appears that such denial was prejudicial to the defendant. * * *””
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.