132 W. Va. 814 - Hannah v. Beasley’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently December 2008 · most notably 171 W. Va. 584 - Conley v. Spillers (1983), 149 W. Va. 246 - Barnett v. Wolfolk (1965)
2 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
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 Pickeral v. Federal Land Bank · Griffin v. Griffin · Kemp v. Miller · 98 W. Va. 698 - Marguerite Coal Co. v. Meadow River Lumber Co. · 108 W. Va. 443 - Collins v. Treat
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" ‘To justify the application of the doctrine of res judicata, "* * * there must be a concurrence of four conditions, namely: (1) identity in the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of persons, and of parties to the action; (4) identity of the quality in the person for or against whom the claim is made.” Opinion. Marguerite Coal Co. v. Meadow River Lumber Co., 98 W.Va. 698 [ 127 S.E. 644 ].’ Syllabus, Hannah v. Beasley, 132 W.Va. 814 , 53 S.E.2d 729 (1949)."”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘An adjudication by a court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties is final and conclusive, not only as to the matters actually determined, but as to every other matter which the parties might have litigated as incident thereto and coming within the legitimate purview of the subject-matter of the action. It is not essential that the matter should have been formally put in issue in a former suit, but it is sufficient that the status of the suit was such that the parties might have had the matter disposed of on its merits. An erroneous ruling of the court will not prevent the matter from being res judicata.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““[f]or a second action to be a second vexation which the law will forbid, the two actions must have (1) substantially the same parties who sue and defend in each case in the same respective character, (2) the same cause of action, and (3) the same object.””
2 later decisions 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.