173 W. Va. 43 - State v. Kopa’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 121 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably 193 W. Va. 147 - State v. McGinnis (1994), 180 W. Va. 342 - State v. England (1988)
10 federal appellate · 121 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Escobedo v. Illinois · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · Sandstrom v. Montana
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he action of a trial court in admitting or excluding evidence in the exercise of its discretion will not be disturbed by the appellate court unless it appears that such action amounts to an abuse of discretion.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“3. Rule 607 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence allows a party, including the one who called the witness, to impeach a witness by a prior inconsistent statement. 4. Rule 607 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence does not free either party to intro duce otherwise inadmissible evidence into trial under the guise of impeachment. 5.The balancing test in Rule 403 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence should be used to determine whether impeachment evidence should be barred because its prejudicial effect outweighs its impeachment value.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Court instructs the jury that where the State of West Virginia has established a prima facie case and the defendant relies upon the defense of alibi, the burden is upon the defendant to prove it, not beyond a reasonable doubt, nor by a preponderance of the evidence, but by such evidence, and to such a decree of certainty, as will, when the whole evidence is considered, create and leave in the mind of the jury a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant.” 173 W.Va. at 47-48, 311 S.E.2d at 417 .”
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.