166 W. Va. 259 - State v. Nuckolls’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently July 2012 · most notably 167 W. Va. 411 - State v. Daggett (1981), 167 W. Va. 385 - State v. Boyd (1981)
49 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 160 W. Va. 234 - State v. Boyd · 159 W. Va. 691 - State v. Milam · 132 W. Va. 322 - State v. Simon · 162 W. Va. 41 - State v. Ellsworth Wayne · State v. Taylor
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Why look at her. She is not paying any attention. She didn't do this, she didn't do that.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“amounted to a comment upon the failure to the defendant to testify.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Under our statutes relating to the commitment of criminals, the Court may order that a person who has been found not guilty by reason of mental illness, retardation, or addiction, be hospitalized in a mental health facility for a period not to exceed forty days for observation and examination. During the observation period, procedures for civil commitment may be initiated before the court having jurisdiction over the individual. The Prosecuting Attorney of the county within which the crime occurred must be notified of any hearing conducted within five years of the alleged crime relating to the commitment of the individual and shall have the right to be heard at any such hearing.” In order for the individual to be committed, the Court must make a finding that the individual is mentally ill, retarded, or addicted, and as a result is likely to cause serious harm to himself or to others if allowed to remain at liberty. The Court must also find that there are no less restrictive alternatives than commitment appropriate for the individual. Once these findings have been made, the Court may order the individual to a mental health facility for an indeterminate period not exceeding six months. If the order is for a temporary observation period, the Court, at any time prior to the expiration of that period, may hold another hearing on the basis of a report by the chief medical officer of the mental health facility where the patient is confined to determine whether the original order sh”
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.