Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 183 W. Va. 641 - State v. Edward Charles L.

183 W. Va. 641 - State v. Edward Charles L.’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

204
cited by 204 later decisions
12
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 202 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 204 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 204 Ill. 2d 159 - People v. Donoho (2003), 196 W. Va. 294 - State v. LaRock (1996)

2 federal appellate · 202 state decisions — followed in 12 states

920199020002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Santoni v. United States · United States v. Beechum · Lawrence Metze v. New York · Exxon Corp. v. Department of Revenue of Wisconsin

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

  1. “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. W.Va.R.Evid. 404(b).”
    16 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Collateral acts or crimes may be introduced in cases involving child sexual assault or sexual abuse victims to show the perpetrator had a lustful disposition towards the victim, a lustful disposition towards children generally, or a lustful disposition to specific other children provided such evidence relates to incidents reasonably close in time to the incident(s) giving rise to the indictment.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(4)Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. — Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar- as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.