189 W. Va. 523 - State v. GARY F.’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
October 2006
most recently cited
4 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Pointer v. Texas · Kent v. United States · Maryland v. Craig · Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Our traditional appellate standard for determining whether the failure to comply with eourt[-]ordered pretrial discovery is prejudicial is contained in Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Grimm, 165 W.Va. 547 , 270 S.E.2d 173 (1980), and is applicable to discovery under Rule 16 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. It is summarized: The non-disclosure is prejudicial where the defense is surprised on a material issue and where the failure to make the disclosure hampers the preparation and presentation of the defendant’s case.” Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Johnson, 179 W.Va. 619 , 371 S.E.2d 340 (1988).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The court may, upon consideration of the child's mental and physical condition, maturity, emotional attitude, home or family environment, school experience and similar personal factors, transfer a juvenile proceeding to criminal jurisdiction if there is a probable cause to believe that: [One of the following enumerated crimes was committed].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The traditional appellate standard for determining prejudice for discovery violation under Rule 16 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure involves a two-pronged analysis: (1) did the non-diselosure surprise the defendant on a material fact, and (2) did it hamper the preparation and presentation of the defendant’s case.”
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.