220 W. Va. 214 - State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
May 2013
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Moran v. Burbine · 162 W. Va. 467 - State v. Vance · 192 W. Va. 247 - State v. Farley · 193 W. Va. 519 - State v. Bradshaw
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court should construe all facts in the light most favorable to the State, as it was the prevailing party below. Because of the highly fact-specific nature of a motion to suppress, particular deference is given to the findings of the circuit court because it had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and to hear testimony on the issues. Therefore, the circuit court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error.”
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.