195 W. Va. 656 - State v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
20 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Holland v. United States · Bourjaily v. United States · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Michigan v. Clifford
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“According to State v. Fairchild, 171 W.Va. 137, 144 , 298 S.E.2d 110, 117 (1982), "evidence of acts or declarations of co-conspirators or co-actors is admissible only if a proper foundation, or prima facie case, is established.... The required foundation consists of: (1) proof of a conspiracy existing between the declarant and the defendant; and (2) proof that the act or declaration was made during and in pursuance of the conspiracy or joint enterprise. (Citation omitted.)" See Bourjaily v. U.S., 483 U.S. 171, 176-81 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2779-82 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 153-56 (1987) (holding the Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) requires proof of the conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence and allows consideration of the offered declaration as part of the proof of the conspiracy); State v. Nixon, 178 W.Va. 338 , [342], 359 S.E.2d 566, 570 (1987).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“According to State v. Fairchild, 171 W.Va. 137, 144 , 298 S.E.2d 110, 117 (1982), “evidence of acts or declarations of co-conspirators or co-actors is admissible only if a proper foundation, or prima facie ease, is established_ The required foundation consists of: (1) proof of a conspiracy existing between the declarant and the defendant; and (2) proof that the act or declaration was made during and in pursuance of the conspiracy or joint enterprise. (Citation omitted.)” See Bourjaily v. U.S., 483 U.S. 171, 176-81 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2779-82 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 153-56 (1987) (holding the Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) requires proof of the conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence and allows consideration of the offered declaration as part of the proof of the conspiracy); State v. Nixon, 178 W.Va. 338 , [342], 359 S.E.2d 566, 570 (1987).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A parent accused of sexual abuse by his minor cMld has a constitutional right to know of what his child accuses him in order to prepare Ms defense. But certainly the cMld victim has a concurrent right to be protected against unrestrained private examination by adverse interests. Child victims of sexual abuse doubtless have undergone a horrifying experience.”
1 later decision 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.