157 W. Va. 702 - State v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently October 1997 · most notably 196 W. Va. 294 - State v. LaRock (1996), 158 W. Va. 905 - State v. Starr (1975)
36 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 154 W. Va. 771 - State v. Collins · 148 W. Va. 263 - State Ex Rel. Dandy v. Thompson · 149 W. Va. 649 - State Ex Rel. Brown v. Thompson · 116 W. Va. 75 - State v. Shelton · Hollin v. Commonwealth
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As the motion for mistrial was made by the defendant and not by the court, we are of the opinion that the principles enunciated in the Brooks case, supra, and Code 1931, 62-3-7 do not apply. The right of a defendant to question the propriety of the discharge of a jury during trial for manifest necessity by a subsequent plea of autrefois acquit does not arise where a mistrial was obtained at the instance of the accused and was not attributable to prosecutorial or judicial overreaching.” [Citations omitted]. [ 157 W.Va. at 706-07 , 203 S.E.2d at 702 ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Where a State’s witness, who is an alleged accomplice of the accused makes an unsolicited acknowledgement of his conviction for the criminal incident on which the accused is standing trial, and such occurrence is brought to the attention of the trial court by a timely motion, a manifest necessity beyond the control of the court arises, and a refusal to grant a mistrial on such occurrence is reversible error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Code 1931, 61-11-14 permits the State to take additional prosecutorial action against the defendant Bennett. (Citations omitted). However, as to the charge for which the defendant was convicted, he has been once placed in jeopardy and he is entitled to be discharged from further prosecution as the alleged perpetrator of the crime of attempted armed robbery....”
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.