180 W. Va. 363 - State v. Moss’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably State v. Harvey (1997), 193 W. Va. 388 - State v. Sugg (1995)
2 federal appellate · 42 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · Edwards v. Arizona · United States v. Young
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“assumes a quasi-judicial role and is required to set a tone of fairness and impartiality[.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“7. A prosecutor may argue all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the record. It is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor intentionally to misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw. "8. `It is improper for a prosecutor in this State to "assert his personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, as to the credibility of a witness ... or as to the guilt or innocence of the accused....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Critzer, 167 W.Va. at 661 , 280 S.E.2d at 292 . He misstated crucial evidentiary matters. And he referred the jury to the fact that the deceased woman's husband took a polygraph, arguing to the jury”
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.