203 W. Va. 631 - State v. Easton’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably 208 W. Va. 144 - State v. Allen (2000), 213 W. Va. 503 - State Ex Rel. Appleby v. Recht (2002)
46 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 Blockburger v. United States · Benton v. Maryland · Grayned v. City of Rockford · William Marbury v. James Madison · BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When a criminal defendant is convicted of a crime and the penal statute defining the elements of the crime and prescribing the punishment therefor is repealed or . amended after his/her conviction of the crime but before he/she has been sentenced . therefor, the sentencing court shall apply the penalties imposed by the statute in effect at the time of the offense, except where the amended penal statute provides for lesser penalties. If the amended penal statute provides lesser penalties for the same conduct proscribed by the statute in effect at the time of the offense, the defendant. shall have an opportunity to elect under which statute he/she wishes to be sentenced, consistent with the statutory mandate contained in W. Va. Code § 2-2-8 (1923) (Repl. Vol. 1994) and our prior directive set forth in Syllabus point 2 of State ex rel. Arbogast v. Mohn, 164 W.Va. 6 , 260 S.E.2d 820 (1979).” Syl. Pt. 6, State v. Easton, 203 W.Va. 631 , 510 S.E.2d 465 (1998).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"A reviewing court should not reverse a criminal case on the facts which have been passed upon by the jury, unless the court can say that there is reasonable doubt of guilt and that the verdict must have been the result of misapprehension, or passion and prejudice." Syllabus point 3, State v. Sprigg, 103 W.Va. 404 , 137 S.E. 746 (1927).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A convicted defendant who presses a claim of evidentiary insufficiency faces an uphill climb. The defendant fails if the evidence presented, taken in the light most agreeable to the prosecution, is adequate to permit a rational jury to find the essential elements of the offense of conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Phrased another way, as long as the aggregate evidence justifies a judgment of conviction, other hypotheses more congenial to a finding of innocence need not be ruled out. We reverse only if no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
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.