177 W. Va. 633 - State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably 179 W. Va. 403 - State v. Worley (1988), Alley v. State (1994)
26 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 Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc. · 151 W. Va. 1 - State v. Hamric · 141 W. Va. 55 - State v. Huffman · 172 W. Va. 295 - State v. Williams · 161 W. Va. 530 - State v. Pratt
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ 'The true test as to whether a juror is qualified to serve on the panel is whether without bias or prejudice he can render a verdict solely on the evidence under the instructions of the court.’ Syl. pt. 1, State v. Wilson, 157 W.Va. 1036 , 207 S.E.2d 174 (1974).” Syllabus Point 4, State v. Wade, 174 W.Va. 381 , 327 S.E.2d 142 (1985).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In determining whether an out-of-court identification of a defendant is so tainted as to require suppression of an in-court identification a court must look to the totality of the circumstances and determine whether the identification was reliable, even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive, with due regard given to such factors as the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Day““A prospective juror’s consanguineal, marital or social relationship with an employee of a law enforcement agency does not operate as a per se disqualification for cause in a criminal case unless the law enforcement official is actively involved in the prosecution of the case. After establishing that such a relationship exists, a party has a right to obtain individual voir dire of the challenged juror to determine possible prejudice or bias arising from the relationship.””
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.