166 W. Va. 615 - In Re EH’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 2004 · most notably 182 W. Va. 302 - Matter of Jonathan P. (1989), In re Ralph M. (1989)
30 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 Kent v. United States · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · McKeiver v. Pennsylvania · Breed v. Jones · United States v. Radio Television News Directors Ass'n
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.
“"Moreover, the [juvenile] transfer statute, W.Va.Code, 49-5-10 (1978), and W.Va. Code, 49-5-1 (1978), which contains general provisions regarding hearing rights, as well as State v. McArdle, 156 W.Va. 409 , 194 S.E.2d 174 (1973), [modified on other grounds, State v. Hatfield, 169 W.Va. 191 , 286 S.E.2d 402 (1982) ], provide substantial due process rights that must be accorded a juvenile at a transfer hearing, including: (1) an advance written notice of the grounds relied upon for transfer; (2) an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and evidence; (3) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; (4) a neutral hearing officer; (5) the right to have counsel present including court-appointed counsel if indigent; (6) a record of the evidence of the hearing; (7) findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the transfer decision is based; and (8) a right of direct appeal to this Court." [4]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“As to those other hearings which are set out in ~W.Va.Code, 49-5-1 (1978), et seq., and which are heard by the court or referee and do not involve the issue of culpability, the Legislature has provided a more general standard. This standard comports with the traditional rule that where matters are heard before a court without a jury, there is a broader latitude on evidentiary matters, since it is assmned that a judge can weed out the extraneous from the relevant and because of his legal training will not be influenced by otherwise inadmissible evidence. [Citation omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If, after a hearing, the court directs the transfer of any juvenile proceeding to criminal jurisdiction, it shall state on the record the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which its decision is based or shall incorporate such findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order directing transfer.”
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.