133 W. Va. 474 - Bischoff v. Francesa’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably 147 W. Va. 484 - Cotiga Development Co. v. United Fuel Gas Co. (1962), 182 W. Va. 597 - Board of Education v. Zando, Martin & Milstead, Inc. (1990)
2 federal appellate · 38 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 129 W. Va. 54 - Harbert v. County Court of Harrison County · Ames v. American National Bank · 131 W. Va. 88 - Kanawha Banking & Trust Co. v. Gilbert · Charleston Lumber Co. v. Friedman · 79 W. Va. 532 - Jones v. Island Creek Coal Co.
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“And finally we are of opinion that the trial court erred in holding that interest should be allowed on plaintiffs’ judgment from the time of the commissioner’s report, June 16, 1948, and not from March 15, 1944, the date that defendants attempted to make fi nal settlement with the plaintiffs, that being the date of their final estimate. Where a claim is liquidated or can be ascertained by computation, interest should be allowed from the date when payment should be made; and the fact that there was a dispute between the parties as to the amounts due, plaintiffs’ claim, nevertheless, was capable of computation in the event they were entitled to prevail in the dispute entailed in this record. Here the unit prices under the original contract, as well as any modification due to the change order, were clearly specified. Defendants’ compensation was to be ten per cent; plaintiffs’ compensation was to be the bid price less ten per cent. So plaintiffs’ claim from the time defendants submitted their final estimate, showing the amount and quantity of the work done, was capable of computation, and plaintiffs, as the moneys were received from the housing authority, then and there were entitled to payment. In Bennett v. Federal Coal & Coke Co., 70 W.Va. 456 , pt. 1 syl., 74 S.E. 418 , 40 L.R.A.,N.S., 588, this Court said: “As a general rule, where plaintiff’s demand is liquidated, or if unliquidated, can be readily ascertained by computation, interest thereon should be allowed, if the dema”
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.