204 W. Va. 58 - State v. Rodoussakis’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
124 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez (2007), State v. Ortiz (1999)
124 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 United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co. · Hill v. Lockhart · Federal Trade Commission v. Textile & Apparel Group · Von Bulow ex rel. Auersperg v. Von Bulow · 192 W. Va. 165 - State v. Derr
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] trial court's evidentiary rulings, as well as its application of the Rules of Evidence, are subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction takes on a heavy burden. An appellate court-must review all the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the prosecution and must credit all inferences and-credibility assessments that the jury might .have drawn in favor of the prosecution. The evidence peed not be inconsistent with every conclusion save that of guilt so long as the jury can find guilt-beyond a reasonable doubt. Credibility determinations are for a jury and not an appellate court. Finally, a jury verdict should be set aside only when the record contains no evidence, regardless . of how it is weighed, from which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he standard of review for a trial court's admission of evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) [of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence] involves a three-step analysis. First, we review for clear error the trial court's factual determination that there is sufficient evidence to show the other acts occurred. Second, we review de novo whether the trial court correctly found the evidence was admissible for a legitimate purpose. Third, we review for an abuse of discretion the trial court's conclusion that the `other acts' evidence is more probative than prejudicial under Rule 403.”
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.