State v. RH’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
December 1998
most recently cited
16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Marks v. United States · Kent v. United States · Bouie v. City of Columbia · Calder et Wife, v. Bull et Wife. · Beazell v. State of Ohio Chatfield
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action; (2) every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was when committed; (3) every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed; (4) every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“The well-settled rule in West Virginia is that sworn testimony taken from a former trial or proceeding is admissible if there is (1) an inability to obtain the testimony of the witness, (2) an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former proceeding, and (3) a substantial identity of parties and the issues. State v. Dawson, 129 W.Va. 279 , 40 S.E.2d 306 (1946). Where the witness is unavailable by reason of death or insanity or where the witness is beyond the scope of state process or where the whereabouts of the witness are unknown and cannot be discovered by diligent search or where the witness cannot remember, the prior testimony of the witness is admissible in a subsequent proceeding. See State v. Spadafore, 159 W.Va. 236 , 220 S.E.2d 655 (1975); State v. Dawson, supra; Show v. Mount Vernon Farm Dairy Products, Inc., 128 W.Va. 598 , 37 S.E.2d 459 (1946); State v. Sauls, 97 W.Va. 184 , 124 S.E. 670 (1924). Where the prior testimony is sought to be introduced on the ground that the witness’s whereabouts are unknown, such evidence is not admissible unless it is shown that diligent efforts to secure the attendance of the witness were made unsuccessfully. State v. Sauls, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“which in relation to the offense or its consequences, alters the situation of a party to his disadvantage.”
1 later decision 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.