State v. Macri’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2019
8 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
Relies on Russell v. United States · Hartman v. United States · 194 W. Va. 770 - State Ex Rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc. · Kellogg v. United States · 178 W. Va. 444 - McClung v. Marion County Commission
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n light of these cases and the statutorily-created relationship between a prosecuting attorney and an assistant prosecuting attorney in West Virginia, we conclude an assistant prosecuting attorney is not a public officer under West Virginia Code § 7-7-8 for purposes of the citizenship requirement contained within Article TV, Section 4 of the West Virginia Constitution. In making this decision, we are mindful of the criteria listed in Carson and the application of that criteria to our decision in Carr . As we previously explained, however, Carr' cannot directly control the present cases because different constitutional and statutory provisions are involved. In accordance with our holding today, we find it necessary to slightly modify syllabus point two of Carr . As quoted above, syllabus point two currently states: “[t]he position of assistant prosecuting attorney is an appointed public office and pursuant to W. Va.Code, 18-5-la [1967], a person holding such office is ineligible to serve as a member of any county board of education.” We believe the better language appeared at the conclusion of that ease, where this Court said: “[Tjhe position of assistant prosecuting attorney is a ‘public officer’ within the contemplation of W. Va.Code, 18-5-la [1967], thereby rendering ... [an individual occupying that position] ineligible to serve as a member of any county board of education.” 179 W.Va. at 281 , 367 S.E.2d at 229 . Therefore, we modify syllabus point two of Carr to this e”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Although an assistant prosecuting attorney 'may perform the same duties as his [or her] principal,' any authority under this statute allowing an assistant to perform these duties remains subject to the ultimate authority and control of the prosecutor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.