Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 178 W. Va. 303 - State v. Orth

178 W. Va. 303 - State v. Orth’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
February 2015
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 2015

11 state decisions

801987199020002010decided

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 Durham v. United States · United States v. Brawner · Parsons v. State · 166 W. Va. 743 - State Ex Rel. Skinner v. Dostert · 6 Cal. 3d 530 - People v. Poyet

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

  1. “The track employed the police officer for its own private purposes, presumably the provision of security services. The security director for Wheeling Downs summoned his employee, the policeman, and had him serve the arrest warrants on the appellant, which is part of the policeman’s official duty. See West Virginia Code § 8-14-3 (1984 Replacement Vol.). Essentially, then, the officer was engaged in privately motivated conduct while clothed with the official power of the state. This use of the official powers of a policeman under the direction of a private party seems to us to be improper.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “It is general law that where a public peace officer, within his territorial jurisdiction, undertakes to discharge a duty which comes within the purview of his office, he is presumed to act in his official capacity. For his services in such connection he may have recompense only as fixed by law. A promise of a third person, whether individual or corporate, to remunerate him for such services is against public policy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “had reason to believe the appellant did not have sufficient funds on deposit”
    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.