193 W. Va. 503 - State v. Satterfield’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 state decisions

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

1. “‘““To warrant a change of venue in a criminal ease, there must be a showing of good cause therefor, the burden of which rests on the defendant, the only person who, in any such case, is entitled to a change of venue. The good cause aforesaid must exist at the time application for a change of venue is made. Whether, on the showing made, a change of venue will be ordered, rests in the sound discretion of the trial court; and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed, unless it clearly appears that the discretion aforesaid has been abused.” Point 2, Syllabus, State v. Wooldridge, 129 W.Va. 448 , 40 S.E.2d 899 (1946).’ Syllabus Point 1, State v. Sette, 161 W.Va. 384 , 242 S.E.2d 464 (1978).” Syl. pt. 1, State v. Derr, 192 W.Va. 165 , 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 227 W. Va. 297 - State v. Black · State v. Horton

2. “According to the appellant, the indictment charged him' with “feloniously, maliciously, deliberatély and unlawfully ,.. slay[ing], killing], and murderfing] one Billy Harper[.]” The appellant argues that since the indictment did not reflect that the murder occurred during a robbery, it was error for the trial judge to read instructions regarding felony murder. However, this argument has been rejected previously by this Court in [Bragg,] a ease in, which the defendant was convicted under the theory of felony murder.... Thus, it is clear that the indictment did not need to specifically charge the appellant with felony murder. Additionally, it follows that it was not error for the trial judge to read instructions regarding felony murder.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of West Virginia v. Jeremy Lambert · 225 W. Va. 218 - State v. Hughes

3. “[The declarant] was in complete control of the timing and circumstances of his death. The majority fails to distinguish the difference between [a] suicide note, and a statement made by a person facing inevitable death due to circumstances beyond his control. If ever there is a time to put one’s best face forward, it would be in a note that will literally stand for all eternity as one’s last testament. A suicide note is the perfect opportunity to rewrite one’s own history in a way calculated to impress one’s final audience. My objection is not intended to imply [the declarant] was lying: rather, the idea that suicide notes should be viewed as admissible evidence under the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule is misguided.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Garza v. Delta Tau Delta Fraternity Nat. · 269 F. Supp. 2d 878 - United States v. Angleton