Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 177 W. Va. 369 - State v. McWilliams

177 W. Va. 369 - State v. McWilliams’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
1
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably 192 W. Va. 345 - Mildred L.M. v. John O.F. (1994), Jones v. Ford Motor Co. (2002)

2 federal appellate · 46 state decisions

2701986199020002010decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 20

Relies on Leland v. Oregon · Davis v. United States · Jones v. United States · James Sackley Company v. United States · 163 W. Va. 752 - State v. Milam

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

  1. ““There exists in the trial of an accused a presumption of sanity. However, should the accused offer evidence that he was insane, the presumption of sanity disappears and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane at the time of the offense.” Syl. pt. 2, State v. Milam, 163 W.Va. 752 , 260 S.E.2d 295 (1979).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘An appellant or plaintiff in error will not be permitted to complain of error in the admission of evidence which he offered or elicited, and this is true even of a defendant in a criminal case.’ Syl. pt. 2, State v. Bowman, 155 W.Va. 562 , 184 S.E.2d 314 (1971).””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “We repeat for emphasis, and lest we be misunderstood, that evidence as to insanity at any time — the present as well as any other — may be admitted insofar as it is relevant to the mental condition of the accused at the time of the offense; that is where it is used by a witness as part of the data upon which he bases a conclusion as to the mental condition at the time of the offense.”
    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.