159 W. Va. 236 - State v. Spadafore’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably 193 W. Va. 229 - McDougal v. McCammon (1995), Commonwealth v. Daye (1984)
51 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 Bridges v. Wixon · Cardillo v. United States · Dombrowski v. Pfister · United States v. Kahaner · United States v. De Sisto
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The orthodox rule with regard to prior inconsistent statements is that such statements cannot be accorded any value as substantive evidence. The reasoning which justifies this rule is that a prior out-of-court statement has not been made in the presence or hearing of the party against whom it is sought to be used and was not elicited under circumstances which permitted exploration of the witness's perception, memory, or prejudice. Therefore, under the orthodox rule, the only authorized use of a prior statement is to neutralize contrary testimony at trial. Jaggie v. Davis Colliery Co., 75 W.Va. 370 , 84 S.E. 941 (1914); Wilson v. McCoy, 86 W.Va. 103 , 103 S.E. 42 (1920); State v. Carduff, [ 142 W.Va. 18 , 93 S.E.2d 502 (1956)]." 159 W.Va. at 246 , 220 S.E.2d at 661 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Accordingly, while prior statements made under oath in a judicial atmosphere either by deposition or at a prior trial and which have been subject to cross-examination by the defendant’s counsel are admissible for the truth of the matter asserted, all other out-of-court statements may be used exclusively to impeach credibility and should be used sparingly in that regard.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) Prior Statement by Witness.The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with his testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition[.]”
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.