201 W. Va. 271 - State v. Lucas’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
94 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 227 W. Va. 407 - State v. James (2011), 226 W. Va. 411 - State v. Grimes (2009)
94 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 Kuntz v. City of Dayton · Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Pratt · 159 W. Va. 108 - Smith v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner · United States v. Bruchey · Moon v. Georgia
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders, including orders of restitution made in connection with a defendant's sentencing, under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“Under W.Va.Code, 61-11A-1 through -8 and the principles established in our criminal sentencing jurisprudence, the circuit court’s discretion in addressing the issue of restitution to crime victims at the time of a criminal defendant’s sentencing is to be guided by a presumption in favor of an award of full restitution to victims, unless the circuit court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that full restitution is impractical, after consideration of all of the pertinent circumstances, including the losses of any victims, the financial circumstances of the defendant and the defendant’s family, the rehabilitative consequences to the defendant and any victims, and such other factors as the court may consider.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bagent · State v. Cummings“[r]ead in pari materia, the provisions of W.Va.Code, 61-11A-1 [1984], W.Va.Code, 61-11A-4(a) [1984], W.Va.Code, 61-11A-4(d) [1984], W.Va.Code, 61-11A-5(a)[1984] and W.Va.Code, 61-11A-5(d) [1984], establish that at the time of a convicted criminal -defendant’s sentencing, a circuit court should ordinarily order the defendant to make 'full restitution to any victims of 'the crime who have suffered injuries, as defined and permitted by the statute,-unless the court determines that ordering ■ such full restitution is impractical.”
3 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.