147 W. Va. 152 - State Ex Rel. Mounts v. Boles’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably 172 W. Va. 295 - State v. Williams (1983), 185 W. Va. 422 - State v. Julius (1991)
7 federal appellate · 22 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 Oyler v. Boles · Pennsylvania v. Budd Co. · 135 W. Va. 90 - Dye v. Skeen · 137 W. Va. 1 - State v. Blankenship · 142 W. Va. 830 - State Ex Rel. Browning v. Tucker
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorney when he has knowledge of former sentence or sentences to the penitentiary of any person convicted of an offense punishable by confinement in the penitentiary to give information thereof to the court immediately upon conviction and before sentence. Said court shall, before expiration of the term at which such person was convicted, cause such person or prisoner to be brought before it, and upon an information filed by the prosecuting attorney, setting forth the records of conviction and sentence, or convictions and sentences, as the case may be, and alleging the identity of the prisoner with the person named in each, shall require the prisoner to say whether he is the same person or not.” (Emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““We therefore hold that the statutory provision regarding ‘duly cautioned’ contained in the statute in question has been fully met when a written information has been filed and the court has advised the accused of the filing of an information with regard to the former conviction and sentence or convictions and sentences, and cautions or advises the accused of each separate former conviction and sentence pertaining to each offense, charge and place of confinement, before the accused acknowledged that he is the same person formerly convicted and sentenced. Any other interpretation or construction of the statute in question would not be justified. * * ” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hooker v. Boles · Hooker v. Boles
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.