Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 209 W. Va. 303 - State v. Davisson

209 W. Va. 303 - State v. Davisson’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
February 2015
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Payton v. New York · United States v. Santana · 194 W. Va. 138 - Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L. · 163 W. Va. 332 - Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co. · 179 W. Va. 580 - State v. Neuman

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.

  1. “While our holding today is applicable to any retrial of Mr. Nichols, our decision has no retroactive application and cannot be used or relied upon by a defendant convicted and sentenced before the filing date of this opinion. “[A] judicial decision in a criminal case is to be given prospective application only if: (a) It established a new principle of law; (b) its retroactive application would retard its operation; and (e) its retroactive application would produce inequitable results.” Syl. pt. 5, in part, State v. Blake, 197 W.Va. 700 , 478 S.E.2d 550 (1996).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “With particular reference to the offense of drunk driving, this Court acknowledged in Carte v. Cline, 200 W.Va. 162 , 488 S.E.2d 437 (1997) that “ ‘an officer having reasonable grounds to believe that a person has been driving while drunk may make a warrantless arrest for that offense even though the offense is not committed in his presence.’” Id. at 167 , 488 S.E.2d at 442 (quoting Bennett v. Coffman, 178 W.Va. 500 , 361 S.E.2d 465, 467 (1987)).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “W.Va.Code § 17C-5A-la(a) (1994) does not require that a police officer actually see or observe a person move, drive, or operate a motor vehicle while the officer is physically present before the officer can charge that person with DUI under this statute, so long as all the surrounding circumstances indicate the vehicle could not otherwise be located where it is unless it was driven there by that person.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.