158 W. Va. 905 - State v. Starr’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 158 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 163 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably 160 W. Va. 234 - State v. Boyd (1977), 162 W. Va. 467 - State v. Vance (1978)
5 federal appellate · 158 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 Jackson v. Denno · Lego v. Twomey · 157 W. Va. 640 - State v. Thomas · 133 W. Va. 584 - State v. Lewis · 155 W. Va. 24 - State v. Plantz
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 163 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The State must prove, at least by a preponderance of the evidence, that confessions or statements of an accused which amount to admissions of part or all of an offense were voluntary before such may be admitted into the evidence of a criminal case.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage““The Court instructs the jury that if, after considering all the evidence, you have a fixed conviction of the truth of the charge, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is your duty to convict the Defendant. The doubt which will justify an acquittal must be actual and substantial nor a mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs and depending on oral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. If you believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Defendant is guilty, though you also believe it possible he is not guilty you should convict the Defendant.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]ll courts when confronted with a situation involving the fundamental personal rights of an individual, have considered unassigned errors, if meritorious and prejudicial, as jurisdictional, or have noticed them as 'plain error.' ... [T]he rule is fashioned and applied to meet the ends of justice or to prevent the invasion of or denial of fundamental rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Meadows v. Legursky
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.