174 W. Va. 787 - State v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2003 · most notably 182 W. Va. 345 - State v. Fortner (1989), 203 W. Va. 561 - State v. Salmons (1998)
27 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · Mattox v. United States · Mancusi v. Stubbs · Barbee v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘It necessarily follows that if the omitted evidence creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist, constitutional error has been committed. This means that the omission must be evaluated in the context of the entire record. If there is no reasonable doubt about guilt whether or not the additional evidence is considered, there is no justification for a new trial. On the other hand, if the verdict is already of questionable validity, additional evidence of relatively minor importance might be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt.’ 427 U.S. at 112-13 , 49 L.Ed.2d at 355 , 96 S.Ct. at 2402 . (Footnote omitted)””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Hearsay exceptions. — The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: "(1) Former testimony. — Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 , 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215, 218 (1963), the United States Supreme Court held that ‘suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.’ ””
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.