175 W. Va. 132 - State v. Blessing’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 2010
10 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 148 W. Va. 323 - Levine v. Headlee · 137 W. Va. 561 - Janssen v. Carolina Lumber Co. · 168 W. Va. 13 - State v. Hobbs · 133 W. Va. 1 - Lennox Ex Rel. Rose v. White · 168 W. Va. 45 - State v. Johnson
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All right. I’m going to give you an additional instruction ... [Y]ou have informed the court of your inability to reach a verdict in this case. The court does not wish to know and you are not to indicate how you stand or whether you entertain a ... predominant view ... [A]t the outset the court wishes you to know that although you have a duty to reach a verdict if that is possible, the court has neither the power nor the desire to compel an agreement upon a verdict. The purpose of these remarks is to point out to you the importance and the desirability of reaching a verdict in this case, provided, however, that you as individual jurors can do so without surrendering or sacrificing your conscientious scruples or personal convictions. You will recall that upon assuming your duties in this case each of you took an oath. That oath places upon each of you as individuals the responsibility of arriving at a true verdict on the basis of your own opinion and not merely upon acquiesence in the conclusion of your fellow jurors. However, it by no means follows that opinions may not be changed by conference in the jury room. The very object of the jury system is to reach a verdict by a comparison of views and by a consideration of the proofs with your fellow jurors. During your deliberations you should be openminded and consider the issues with proper deference to and respect for the opinions of each other, and you should not hesitate to reexamine your own views in the light of such discu”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“What I’m asking you at this time is to go back in and decide what you want to do as far as deliberating. I want you to deliberate for some other period of time. If you want to go to dinner or if you want to stay or if you want to come back Monday, I will go along with whatever you want to do. I don’t feel at this time you have had sufficient time. I don’t want to attempt to coerce you in any way, but I don’t feel you have had sufficient time to reach a verdict. ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.