163 W. Va. 40 - State v. Burton’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
134 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 148 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably 172 W. Va. 295 - State v. Williams (1983), 173 W. Va. 43 - State v. Kopa (1983)
134 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Morrissey v. Brewer · Gault · Massiah v. United States · Malloy v. Hogan
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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to assert an attorney-client privilege, three main elements must be present: (1) both parties must contemplate that the attorney-client relationship does or will exist; (2) the advice must be sought by the client from the attorney in his capacity as a legal advisor; (3) the communication between the attorney and client must be intended to be confidential.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage“A trial judge in a criminal case has a right to control the orderly process of a trial and may intervene into the trial process for such purpose, so long as such intervention does not operate to prejudice the defendant’s case. With regard to evidence bearing on any material issue, including the credibility of witnesses, the trial judge should not intimate any opinion, as these matters are within the exclusive province of the jury.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage“The trial judge in a criminal trial must consistently be aware that he occupies a unique position in the minds of the jurors and is capable, because of his position, of unduly influencing jurors in the discharge of their duty as triers of the facts. This Court has consistently required trial judges not to intimate an opinion on any fact in issue in any manner. In criminal cases, we have frequently held that conduct of the trial judge which indicates his opinion on any material matter will result in a guilty verdict being set aside and a new trial awarded. See State v. Pietranton, 137 W.Va. 477 , 72 S.E.2d 617 (1952); State v. Summers, 118 W.Va. 118 , 188 S.E. 873 (1936); State v. Shelton, 116 W.Va. 75 , 178 S.E. 633 (1935); State v. Austin, 93 W.Va. 704 , 117 S.E. 607 (1923); State v. Staley, 45 W.Va. 792 , 32 S.E. 198 (1899); and State v. Hurst, 11 W.Va. 54 (1877).”
4 later decisions 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.