Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 199 W. Va. 507 - State v. Phillips

199 W. Va. 507 - State v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
October 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 2017

2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

60199720002010decided

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 192 W. Va. 165 - State v. Derr · 170 W. Va. 662 - State v. Neider · 180 W. Va. 342 - State v. England · 169 W. Va. 366 - State v. Goodnight · 164 W. Va. 216 - State v. Vance

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

  1. “The first [test] is subjective and asks whether the sentence for the particular crime shocks the conscience of the court and society. If a sentence is so offensive that it cannot pass a societal and judicial sense of justice, the inquiry need not proceed further. When it cannot be said that a sentence shocks the conscience, a disproportionality challenge is guided by the objective test we spelled out in Syllabus Point 5 of Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher, [166] W.Va. [523], 276 S.E.2d 205 (1981): In determining whether a given sentence violates the proportionality principle found in Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution, consideration is given to the nature of the offense, the legislative purpose behind the punishment, a comparison of the punishment with what would be inflicted in other jurisdictions, and a comparison with other offenses within the same jurisdiction.”
    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.