Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 170 W. Va. 419 - State v. Walls

170 W. Va. 419 - State v. Walls’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
3
states following
November 2010
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably 172 W. Va. 491 - State v. Zaccagnini (1983), 176 W. Va. 613 - State v. Adkins (1986)

35 state decisions

2401982199020002010decided

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 Franks v. Delaware · Lehman Bros. v. Lilly · 165 W. Va. 588 - State v. Clawson · United States v. Luschen · 167 W. Va. 155 - State Ex Rel. Barker v. Manchin

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

  1. “[t]he general rule is that where the informant has only peripheral knowledge of the crime, his identity need not be disclosed. Where the informant directly participates in the crime, or is a material witness to it, disclosure may be required, particularly where, in a drug related crime, he is the only witness to the transaction other than the defendant and the buyer.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““A common law privilege is accorded the government against the disclosure of the identity of an informant who has furnished information concerning violations of law to officers charged with the enforcement of the law. However, disclosure may be required where the defendant’s case could be jeopardized by nondisclosure.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““[m]ost courts have held that possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance can be proven by establishing a number of circumstances, among which are the quantity of the controlled substance possessed and the presence of other paraphernalia customarily used in the packaging and delivery of controlled substances.” Syllabus Point 4, State v. Drake, 170 W.Va. 169 , 291 S.E.2d 484 (1982).”
    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.