161 W. Va. 371 - State v. Hersman’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably 208 W. Va. 144 - State v. Allen (2000), State v. Nagle (1986)
26 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 North Carolina v. Pearce · 327 So. 2d 18 - State v. Jones · State v. Fuentes · Corner v. Griffith · 26 Ariz. App. 444 - State v. Fuentes
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he determination of fitness for treatment as a youthful male offender should be predicated on factors relating to the sub ject’s background and his rehabilitation prospects. Of necessity, the decision to treat a person as a youthful male offender is based on the fact that he will benefit and respond to the rehabilitative atmosphere of a detention center.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Release on probation shall be upon the following conditions: “(1) That the probationer shall not, during the term of his probation, violate any criminal law of this or any other state, or of the United States. “(2) That he shall not, during the term of his probation, leave the State without the consent of the court which placed him on probation. “(3) That he shall comply with the rules and regulations prescribed by the court or by the board of probation and parole, as the case may be, for his supervision by the probation officer. “In addition, the court may impose, subject to modification at any time, any other conditions which it may deem advisable, including but not limited to any of the following: “(1) That he shall make restitution or reparation, in whole or in part, immediately or within the period of probation, to any party injured by the crime for which he has been convicted. “(2) That he shall pay any fine assessed and the costs of the proceeding in such installments as the court may direct. “(3) That he shall make contributions from his earnings, in such sums as the court may direct, for the support of his dependents.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If, in the opinion of the warden, the young adult offender is an unfit person to remain in the center, the offender shall be returned to the committing court to be dealt with further according to law. The offender is entitled to a hearing before the committing court to review the warden’s determination. The standard for review is whether the warden, considering the offender’s overall record at the center and the offender’s compliance with the center’s rules, policies, procedures, programs and services, abused his or her discretion in determining that the offender is an unfit person to remain in the center. At the hearing before the committing court, the state need not offer independent proof of the offender's disciplinary infractions contained in the record of the center when opportunity for an administrative hearing on those infractions was previously made available at the institution. If the court upholds the warden’s determination, the court may sentence the offender for the crime for which the offender was convicted. In his or her discretion, the judge may allow the defendant credit on the sentence for time the offender spent in the center.”
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.