144 W. Va. 704 - State v. Taft’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2000 · most notably Amador-Gonzalez v. United States (1968), 173 W. Va. 43 - State v. Kopa (1983)
8 federal appellate · 24 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 137 W. Va. 1 - State v. Blankenship · Randolph v. Commonwealth · State v. Welch · 137 W. Va. 733 - Riddle v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad · 114 W. Va. 236 - Robertson v. Hobson
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If an instruction on the subject of the unanimity of the jury is granted by the court, it is proper in the same instruction to tell the jury that “the jury room is no place for pride of opinion or obstinacy, and it is the duty of the jurors to discuss the evidence in a spirit of fairness and candor with each other, and with open minds to give careful consideration to the views of their fellow jurors, and, if it can be done without a sacrifice of conscientious convictions, agree upon a verdict.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The Court instructs the jury that if, after due consideration of the evidence and consultation with his fellows, a juror has a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused in this case, it is his duty not to surrender his own convictions simply because other jurors are of different opinions.””
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.