131 W. Va. 247 - Black v. Maxwell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 state decisions

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

1. “No will shall be valid unless it be in writing and signed by the testator, or by some other person in his presence and by his direction, in such manner as to make it manifest that the name is intended as a signature; and moreover, unless it be wholly in the handwriting of the testator, the signature shall be made or the will acknowledged by him in the presence of at least two competent witnesses, present at the same time; and such witnesses shall subscribe the will in the presence of the testator, and of each other, but no form of attestation shall be necessary.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 171 W. Va. 226 - In Re the Estate of Teubert · Clark v. Studenwalt

2. ““The rule is well established, however, that when exhibits are filed in support of a pleading they are considered as a part of it and if the two are in conflict the exhibit will control and be looked to by the Court. Caswell v. Caswell, 84 W. Va. 575 , 100 S. E. 482 ; Freeman v. Carnegie Natural Gas Co., 74 W. Va. 83 , 81 S. E. 572 ; Atlantic Terra Cotta Co. v. Moore Construction Co., 73 W. Va. 449 , 80 S. E. 924 ; Board of Education v. Berry, 62 W. Va. 433 , 59 S. E. 169 , 125 Am. St. Rep. 975 ; Richardson v. Ebert, 61 W. Va. 523 , 56 S. E. 887. Accordingly the character and the effect of «ach writing and particularly of that dated February 11, 1946, will be determined by the Court from the contents of the exhibit, regardless of the allegations concerning it. City of Wheeling v. Benwood-McMechen Water Co., 115 W. Va. 353 , 176 S. E, 234; Lockhead v. Berkeley Springs Waterworks and Improvement Co., 40 W. Va. 553 , 21 S. E. 1031 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 143 W. Va. 293 - Robinson Improvement Co. v. Tasa Coal Co.

3. “The reason for his failure to sign his name at the end of the writing dated February 11, 1946, can not be ascertained or determined. It can rest only on mere speculation; but that there was some reason for his failure to complete the writing by affixing his signature to it is clear beyond question. He may have wished to change or revise and clarify some of the statements in the writing which may be difficult to interpret or understand, or to postpone its completion in its present form by later signing his name at the end. He may have failed to sign it through inadvertence. Whatever it was, something caused him to hesitate and to stop before its final completion. Whatever his reason, he failed to affix his signature at the end of the writing. The evidence of his intent to use as his signature his name in the first line of the written instrument dated February 11, 1946, must appear from the instrument itself,....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clark v. Studenwalt