167 W. Va. 374 - State v. White’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"We do not reach, and therefore do not decide, the question of whether a warrant that is insufficient on its face may be upheld by subsequent testimony about information actually given the issuing judge but not contained in the affidavit or warrant. We note, however, that this clearly will be unacceptable after October of this year when the new W.Va. Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 41(c) takes effect. That rule states that any information that the issuing judicial officer finds important to his decision to issue a search warrant must be taken under oath and incorporated into the affidavit. As a matter of common sense and judicial efficiency, this is certainly the better practice." (Emphasis in original).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 176 W. Va. 613 - State v. Adkins

2. ““In a criminal case, a verdict of guilt will not be set aside on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence, where the state’s evidence is sufficient to convince impartial minds of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. To warrant interference with a verdict of guilt' on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, the court must be convinced that the evidence was manifestly inadequate and that consequent injustice has been done.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 177 W. Va. 391 - State v. Hutcheson

3. “While we have previously indicated that “we are unanimously of the opinion that the proper way to try a criminal case is to be responsive to all reasonable defense requests,” State v. Sette, 167 [161] W.Va. 386 [384][, 397] 242 S,E.2d 464, 472 (1978), we have also held that, absent a showing that lack of discovery was prejudicial there is no reversible error, Wilhelm v. Whyte, [161] W.Va, [67], 239 S.E.2d 736 , 739 (1977).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State of West Virginia v. Denny Franklin Ervin