179 W. Va. 194 - State v. Barker’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 district · 81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably 8 Cal. 4th 587 - People v. Leahy (1994), 196 W. Va. 588 - Muscatell v. Cline (1996)
2 district · 81 state decisions — followed in 21 states
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 Frye v. United States · State v. Superior Court · 165 W. Va. 588 - State v. Clawson · 367 Pa. Super. 359 - Commonwealth v. Miller · 83 Or. App. 451 - State v. Reed
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]ven if the reliability of the HGN test is demonstrated, an expert's testimony as to a driver's performance on the test is admissible only as evidence that the driver was under the influence. Estimates of blood alcohol content based on the HGN test are inadmissible.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“(k) For purposes of subsections (i) and (j) 5 of this section relating to second, third and subsequent offenses, the following types of convictions shall be regarded as convictions under this section: (3) Any conviction under a municipal ordinance of this state or any other state or a statute of the United States or of any other state of an offense which has the same elements as an offense described in subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g) of this section, which offense occurred after the tenth day of June, one thousand nine hundred eighty-three.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“prior conviction is admissible where it is necessary element of current offense charged or is utilized to enhance penalty.”
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.