164 W. Va. 682 - State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
states following
May 1996
most recently cited
32 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Ashe v. Swenson · Brown v. Ohio · Iannelli v. United States
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appropriate protection against multiple trials for offenses arising from the same criminal transaction requires, in future cases, joinder for trial at the same time of all counts arising out of the same transaction either in a single indictment with multiple counts or multiple separate indictments;”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same offence [ sic ].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In determining whether to apply a change in the decisional law retroactively, the fundamental principle to which we have looked is reliance. Pnakovich v. State Workmen’s Compensation Comm’r, W. Va., 259 S.E.2d 127 (1979); Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co., W. Va., 256 S.E.2d 879 (1979). Since a person or the State should be able to plan the course of civil or criminal litigation with reasonable reliance on current procedural rules, the reliance of the prosecution is an important element in considering whether to apply today’s rule retroactively. Therefore since there is no substantial impairment of the truth finding function (citation omitted) we conclude that this is not a change in decisional law requiring retroactive application.”
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.