Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 125 W. Va. 385 - Belknap v. Shock

125 W. Va. 385 - Belknap v. Shock’s Empirical Analysis

1943

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
September 1987
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently September 1987 · most notably 129 W. Va. 54 - Harbert v. County Court of Harrison County (1946), 144 W. Va. 149 - Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. City of Morgantown (1959)

31 state decisions

11019431950196019701980decided

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 Henderson's Tobacco · Lasater v. Lopez · Woodmont Ass'n v. Town of Milford · Forqueran v. Donnally · People ex rel. Dougherty v. City of Rock Island

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

  1. “We are not overlooking the last sentence of the amendatory act: `All acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed.' This sentence is a part of the very substance of the act, and must be given effect precisely as any other part. But observe the exact words used. No act or part of an act is repealed except such as are `inconsistent' with the new enactment. The word `inconsistent' when so used is not to be loosely construed. It does not mean merely, inharmonious, inappropriate, illogical, unsymmetrical, but connotes impossibility of concurrent operative effect. To be automatically repealed by a subsequent statute, the two acts must be so conflicting that their common survival is a legal impossibility, or that only one can be in force at a given time. The two laws must be so antagonistic that they cannot co-exist. Two antithetical statutes cannot cover the same subject matter at the same time. One must yield to the other from sheer necessity, and by universal practice, the later in time is held to prevail. Thus the inconsistency which will result in the abrogation of one statute by another must be such as will make it impossible as a matter of law that they can both be effective. * * *”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “All acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed.”
    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.