165 W. Va. 73 - State Ex Rel. Betts v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 state decisions

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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[wjhere, as in the present case, the defendant moves for a mistrial on the basis of reversible error not arising from evidentiary insufficiency ... jeopardy does not ordinarily bar a retrial, because the mistrial motion is functionally equivalent to an appeal based on the same trial error.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 179 W. Va. 139 - State v. Pennington · 225 W. Va. 329 - State Ex Rel. Taylor v. Janes

2. ““Here, we are not confronted with a statutory amendment which changes either the basic substantive elements of the drunk driving offense or its punishment. Cf. Adkins v. Bordenkircher, W.Va., 262 S.E.2d 885 (1980) (retroactive change in good time credit statute). The new statutory phrase, to drive while “under the influence of alcohol,” is substantially similar to the old language, driving “under the influence of intoxicating liquor.” Several courts have had occasion to consider whether such phrases are synonymous and have concluded that they are. State v. Davis, 196 N.W.2d 885, 890 (Iowa 1972); State v. Cox, 478 S.W.2d 339 (Mo.1972); State v. Medearis, N.D., 165 N.W.2d 688, 692-93 (1969); see State v. Miles, 8 Or.App. 189 , 492 P.2d 497 (1972).” 267 S.E.2d at 183 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hook v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing · State v. Whittington

3. “[A defendant cannot be retried when his] conviction has been overturned due to a failure of proof at trial, in which case the prosecution cannot complain of prejudice, for it has been given one fair opportunity to offer whatever proof it could assemble. Moreover, such an appellate reversal means that the government’s case was so lacking that it should not have even been submitted to the jury. Since we necessarily afford absolute finality to a jury’s verdict of acquittal — no matter how erroneous its decision — it is difficult to conceive how society has any greater interest in retrying a defendant when, on review, it is decided as a matter of law that the jury could not properly have returned a verdict of guilty. (Footnote omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Clayton