172 W. Va. 486 - State v. Mays’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably Frye v. Commonwealth (1986), 177 W. Va. 264 - State v. Humphrey (1986)
2 federal appellate · 41 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 Florida v. Royer · Dunaway v. New York · Michigan v. Summers · 169 W. Va. 121 - State v. Persinger · 171 W. Va. 212 - State v. Hall
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... By establishing a clear rule that police investigatory interrogations without presentment to a magistrate are allowable only when the suspect is expressly informed that he is not under arrest, is not obligated to answer any questions and is free to go, we hope to establish a system sufficiently flexible that the innocent are allowed to prove their blainelessness and the police are able effectively and legally to interrogate those who are ultimately proven guilty.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"An officer making an arrest under a warrant issued upon a complaint, or any person making an arrest without a warrant for an offense committed in his presence, shall take the arrested person without unnecessary delay before a justice [magistrate] of the county in which the arrest is made. When a person arrested without a warrant is brought before a justice [magistrate], a complaint shall be filed and a warrant issued forthwith. The officer executing the warrant shall make return thereof to the justice [magistrate] before whom the defendant is brought.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A confession obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest is inadmissible. The giving of Miranda warnings is not enough by itself, to break the causal connection between an illegal arrest and the confession. In considering whether the confession is a result of the exploitation of an illegal arrest, the court should consider the temporal proximity of the arrest and confession; the presence or absence of intervening circumstances in addition to the Miranda warnings; and the purpose or flagrancy of the official misconduct.”
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.