197 W. Va. 575 - State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably 197 W. Va. 37 - State Ex Rel. Forbes v. Canady (1996), 205 W. Va. 303 - State v. Mann (1999)
54 state decisions
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002)
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Brown v. Ohio · Green v. United States · Stirone v. United States · United States v. Dixon
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All offenses based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan shall be charged in the same indictment or information in a separate count for each offense, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hubbard · State v. Reed“A judgment will not be reversed for any error in the record introduced by or invited by the party seeking reversal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the proof adduced at trial differs from the allegations in an indictment, it must be determined whether the difference is a variance or an actual or a constructive amendment to the indictment. If the defendant is not misled in any sense, is not subjected to any added burden of proof, and is not otherwise prejudiced, then the difference between the proof adduced at trial and the indictment is a variance which does not usurp the traditional safeguards of the grand jury. However, if the defendant is misled, is subjected to an added burden of proof, or is otherwise prejudiced, the difference between the proof at trial and the indictment is an actual or a constructive amendment of the indictment which is reversible error.”
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.