Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 W. Va. 611 - State v. Acord

175 W. Va. 611 - State v. Acord’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably 180 W. Va. 363 - State v. Moss (1988), 176 W. Va. 172 - State v. Hutchinson (1986)

4 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

1501985199020002010decided

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 160 W. Va. 234 - State v. Boyd · 151 W. Va. 1 - State v. Hamric · 162 W. Va. 602 - State v. Frazier · 170 W. Va. 662 - State v. Neider · Smith v. State

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

  1. “It is true that polygraph test results are not admissible in evidence in a criminal trial in this State. Therefore, error was committed when the witness referred to a polygraph test. Nevertheless, the statement was withdrawn and the jury was instructed to disregard it. Ordinarily where objections to questions or evidence by a party are sustained by the trial court .during the trial and the jury instructed not to consider such matter, it will not constitute reversible error. While there are extraordinary situations where the introduction of evidence is so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard;such evidence will be insufficient and a mistrial should be granted, this case was not one of those extraordinary situations. We, therefore, hold that the trial court was correct in refusing the appellant’s request for a mistrial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “When an accurate physical replica of an unavailable object is helpful in clarifying a witness’s testimony, that replica may, in the discretion of the trial court, be introduced into evidence.”
    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.