Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 W. Va. 610 - Naum v. Halbritter

172 W. Va. 610 - Naum v. Halbritter’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
December 2000
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently December 2000

18 state decisions

100198319902000decided

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 Chambers v. Mississippi · Pointer v. Texas · California v. Green · Dutton v. Evans · 164 W. Va. 112 - Hinkle v. Black

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

  1. ““In California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 156 , 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1934 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 [495-96] (1970), the Supreme Court stated, ‘[M]erely because evidence is admitted in violation of a long established hearsay rule does not lead to the automatic conclusion that confrontation rights have been denied.’ Nevertheless we do believe that where the crucial witness for the prosecution will be unavailable for any form of cross-examination a serious constitutional issue exists. Indeed in Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 , 91 S.Ct. 210 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970), the Supreme Court allowed the use of an out of court admission only after noting that the evidence presented was tangential to the central issue in the case and that the evidence was heavily corroborated.” 172 W.Va. at 615 , 309 S.E.2d at 114 . (Emphasis in original).'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““[W]e took that occasion to outline the circumstances in which a writ of prohibition was appropriate. First, other remedies such as appeal must be inadequate. Second, the writ should not unduly interfere with efficient judicial administration. Third, the writ must be sought in good faith. Finally, it should be addressed to a clear legal issue.””
    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.