Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 W. Va. 247 - State v. Meadows

172 W. Va. 247 - State v. Meadows’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
1
states following
December 2001
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently December 2001 · most notably 173 W. Va. 317 - State v. Peyatt (1983), 173 W. Va. 43 - State v. Kopa (1983)

7 federal appellate · 43 state decisions

330198319902000decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · Benjamin v. United States · 161 W. Va. 517 - State v. Starkey · 169 W. Va. 191 - State v. Hatfield

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

  1. “In a criminal case, a verdict of guilt will not be set aside on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence, when the state’s evidence is sufficient to convince unpartial 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 unjustice has been done.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “When a trial court grants a pre-trial discovery motion requiring the prosecution to disclose evidence in its possession, non-disclosure by the prosecution is fatal to its case where such non-disclosure is prejudicial. The non-disclosure is prejudicial where the defense is surprised on a material issue and where the failure to make the disclosure hampers the preparation and presentation of the defendant’s case.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[a] bill of particulars is for the purpose of furnishing details omitted from the accusation or indictment, to which the defendant is entitled before trial.”
    2 later decisions 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.