Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 404 A.2d 573 - State v. Gleason

State v. Gleason’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

1 district · 56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Schall v. Martin (1984), 182 W. Va. 454 - Israel Ex Rel. Israel v. West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Commission (1989)

1 district · 56 state decisions

32019791980199020002010decided

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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Roe v. Wade · Gault · Stanley v. Illinois · Sibron v. State of New York Peters

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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “First, the court will determine whether sufficient collateral consequences will result from determination of the questions presented so as to justify relief. Second, while technically moot in the immediate context, questions of great public interest may nevertheless be addressed for the future guidance of the bar and of the public. Third, issues which may be repeatedly presented to the trial court, yet escape review at the appellate level because of their fleeting or determinate nature, may appropriately be decided.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[ Rjecent decisions of this Court and the United States Supreme Court have shown that the procedural safeguards constitutionally required in adult criminal proceedings must be afforded a juvenile unless they would ‘compel the States to abandon or displace any of the substantive benefits of the juvenile process.’ In re Winship, . . . [ 397 U.S. 358 ,] at 367, 90 S.Ct. [1068,] at 1074, 25 L.Ed.2d [368,] at 377. Normal adult criminal procedures must be afforded to the extent consistent with the basic rehabilitative purposes of the juvenile justice system.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “1. Purposes. The purposes of this part are: .... D. To secure for any juvenile removed from the custody of the juvenile's parents the necessary treatment, care, guidance, and discipline to assist that juvenile in becoming a responsible and productive member of society.”
    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.