In re Banschbach’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 1987
18 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 In Re Simons · Brown v. Buck · 126 W. Va. 447 - Lake O'Woods Club v. Wilhelm · Commonwealth v. Rowe · Blair v. Curry
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The better-reasoned cases take the view that where either the Constitution or statute gives the right to a trial by jury and the jury is demanded and not waived, the jury constitutes an essential part of the tribunal authorized to determine the facts, and that the court in attempting to determine the facts without a jury exceeds its jurisdiction. * * *””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““In Matheny v. Greider, 115 W.Va. 763 , 177 S.E. 769 , the court held that when a jury trial has been demanded in a civil action the empaneling of a jury to try disputed questions is a jurisdictional requirement and a judgment rendered by the court without empaneling a jury is void. “To the same effect are Territory v. Ah Wah and Ah Ten, 4 Mont. 149 , 1 P. 732 , 47 Am.Rep. 341 ; Tambe v. Otto, 113 N.J.L. 71 , 172 A. 544 ; Clayton v. Clark, 55 N.J.L. 539 , 26 A. 795 ; Armstrong v. Jones, 139 W.Va. 812 , 81 S.E.2d 675 ; State ex rel. Marcum v. Ferrell, 140 W.Va. 202 , 83 S.E.2d 648 ; Crouch v. United States, 4 Cir., 1925, 8 F.2d 435 , and State v. Bates, 22 Utah 65 , 61 P. 905 . We fail to see any distinction in legal principle between the case where a jury may not be waived and one where it may be waived but in fact was not, as here. The only tribunal that has jurisdiction to try issues of fact in a case where the statute confers the right to a jury trial when demanded is the court sitting with a jury, where as here the jury has not in fact been waived.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mahan v. Hardland
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.