181 W. Va. 556 - State v. Nicastro’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Mistretta v. United States · 157 W. Va. 640 - State v. Thomas · 53 Ill. 2d 122 - People v. Bell · 172 W. Va. 312 - State Ex Rel. Simpkins v. Harvey · 158 W. Va. 629 - State v. Dudick
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Prior to imposition of a sentence of incarceration for a defendant convicted of delivery of less than 15 grams of marihuana in violation of W.Va.Code, 60A-4-401(a), as amended, who, although not within the ‘without remuneration’ exception of W.Va.Code, 60A-4-402(c), as amended, has no prior criminal record, a trial court must consider: (1) whether the defendant has a history of involvement with illegal drugs; (2) whether the defendant is a reasonably good prospect for rehabilitation; (3) whether incarceration would serve a useful purpose; and (4) whether available alternatives to incarceration, such as probation conditioned upon community service, would be more appropriate.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘An indictment for a statutory offense is sufficient if, in charging the offense, it substantially follows the language of the statute, fully informs the accused of the particular offense with which he is charged and enables the court to determine the statute on which the charge is based.’ Syl. pt. 3, State v. Hall, 172 W.Va. 138 , 304 S.E.2d 43 (1983). ‘An indictment that [substantially] follows the language of W.Va.Code, 60A-4-401(a), is sufficient on its face.’ Syl. pt. 1, State v. Meadows, 170 W.Va. 191 , 292 S.E.2d 50 (1982).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““An indictment alleging a violation of W.Va.Code, 60A-4-401(a), as amended, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for delivery of marihuana, even though the indictment omits stating whether the alleged offense was committed with or without remuneration.””
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.