159 W. Va. 664 - State v. Cokeley’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably 161 W. Va. 517 - State v. Starkey (1978), 163 W. Va. 40 - State v. Burton (1979)
59 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 151 W. Va. 1 - State v. Hamric · 157 W. Va. 209 - State v. West · 158 W. Va. 629 - State v. Dudick · 140 W. Va. 444 - State v. Pietranton · Sprinkle v. Davis
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Authorities indicate that where the court directs critical remarks at counsel that such conduct should be viewed in the context of the entire trial. A trial court may admonish or rebuke counsel during the trial if counsel’s action requires it. However, it is improper and prejudicial for the trial court to threaten counsel with contempt for attempting to offer or elicit evidence which the court deems inadmissible but which is offered in good faith, particularly where, in a criminal case, the evidence of guilt is conflicting. 75 Am.Jur.2d Trial §§ 116, 118 & 119 (1974). Some courts have held it to be reversible error, per se, for a trial court to make unjustified threats of contempt proceedings against counsel in the presence of the jury. See, e.g., Sprinkle v. Davis, 111 F.2d 925 (4th Cir.1940); Atlantic Refining Co. v. Jones, 70 F.2d 89 (4th Cir.1934).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“" ‘ “In a criminal case where the State confesses error, urges that the judgment be reversed and that the defendant be granted a new trial, this Court, upon ascertaining that the errors confessed are reversible errors and do in fact constitute cause for the reversal of the judgment of conviction, will reverse the judgment and grant the defendant a new trial." Syl. State v. Goff, [ 159 W.Va. 348 ], 221 S.E.2d 891 (1976); State v. Cokeley, [ 159 W.Va. 664 ], 226 S.E.2d 40 (1976).””
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.