Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 170 W. Va. 690 - State v. Pancake

170 W. Va. 690 - State v. Pancake’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
3
states following
November 2012
most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably 193 W. Va. 147 - State v. McGinnis (1994), 172 W. Va. 295 - State v. Williams (1983)

41 state decisions

2601982199020002010decided

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 Blockburger v. United States · Burks v. United States · Brown v. Ohio · Whalen v. United States · Albernaz v. United States

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

  1. “[r]ape is not a lesser-included offense of burglary”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"(a) If any person commits simple larceny of goods or chattels of the value of two hundred dollars or more, such person shall be guilty of a felony, designated grand larceny, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be confined in a penitentiary not less than one nor more than ten years, or, in the discretion of the court, be confined in the county jail not more than one year and shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars. "(b) If any person commits simple larceny of goods or chattels of the value of less than two hundred dollars, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, designated petit larceny, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be confined in the county jail for a term not to exceed one year or fined not to exceed five hundred dollars, or both, in the discretion of the court.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In any prosecution under this article evidence of specific instances of the victim's sexual conduct with persons other than the defendant, opinion evidence of the victim's sexual conduct and reputation evidence of the victim's sexual conduct shall not be admissible: Provided, that such evidence shall be admissible solely for the purpose of impeaching credibility, if the victim first makes his previous sexual conduct an issue in the trial by introducing evidence with respect thereto. [11]”
    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.