Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 197 W. Va. 70 - State v. Ludwick

197 W. Va. 70 - State v. Ludwick’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2016

18 state decisions

80199620002010decided

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 167 W. Va. 252 - State v. Payne · 179 W. Va. 580 - State v. Neuman · 166 W. Va. 337 - State Ex Rel. Watson v. Ferguson · 189 W. Va. 470 - State v. Layton · 181 W. Va. 106 - State v. Hatfield

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

  1. “[e]ven where joinder or consolidation of offenses is proper under the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, the trial court may order separate trials pursuant to Rule 14(a) on the ground that such joinder or consolidation is prejudicial. The decision to grant a motion for severance pursuant to W.Va. R.Crim.P. 14(a) is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Syl. Pt. 3, State v. Hatfield, 181 W.Va. 106 , 380 S.E.2d 670 (1988).”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separate trials of the counts or provide whatever other relief justice requires.”
    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.