201 W. Va. 163 - State v. Helmick’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably 205 W. Va. 224 - State v. Kennedy (1999), 228 W. Va. 530 - State v. White (2011)
26 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 Ohio v. Roberts · United States v. Inadi · Garrett v. United States · Morse v. Republican Party · Cohen v. United States
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[u]nder Rule 801(d)(2)(E) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, a declaration of a conspirator, made subsequent to the actual commission of the crime, may be admissible against any co-conspirator if it was made while the conspirators were still concerned with the concealment of their criminal conduct or their identity." Syllabus Point 3, State v. Helmick, 201 W.Va. 163 , 495 S.E.2d 262 (1997).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A new trial will not be granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence unless the case comes within the following rules: (1) The evidence must appear to have been discovered since the trial, and, from the affidavit of the new witness, what such evidence will be, or its absence satisfactorily explained. (2) It must appear from facts stated in his affidavit that plaintiff was diligent in ascertaining and securing his evidence, and that the new evidence is such that due diligence would not have secured it before the verdict. (3) Such evidence must be new and material, and ■ not merely cumulative; and cumulative evidence is additional evidence of the same kind to the same point. (4) The evidence mu§t be such as ought to produce an opposite result at a second trial on the merits. (5) And the new trial will generally be refused when the sole object of the new evidence is to discredit or impeach a witness on the opposite side.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]ssignments of error that are not argued in the briefs on appeal may be deemed by this Court to be waived.”
2 later decisions 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.