135 W. Va. 877 - State v. Epperly’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
402 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 403 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably State v. General Daniel Morgan Post No. 548 (1959), State v. General Daniel Morgan Post No. 548 (1959)
402 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 132 W. Va. 373 - Hereford v. Meek · 128 W. Va. 456 - State Ex Rel. McLaughlin v. Morris · 130 W. Va. 147 - State Ex Rel. Department of Unemployment Compensation v. Continental Casualty Co. · Smith v. Western Pacific Railway Co. · 107 W. Va. 563 - State v. Reed
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 403 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“The rule that statutes which relate to the same subject should be read and construed together is a rule of statutory construction and does not apply to a statutory provision which is clear and unambiguous.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"* * * The defendant asserts in effect that under the cases just cited, the quoted provisions of Section 1, Article 7, Chapter 48, Code, 1931, which as pointed out in Billingsley v. Clelland, 41 W.Va. 234 , 23 S.E. 812 , permit only the mother of the child to institute a bastardy proceeding, when read together with the provisions of Section 2, Article 8, of the same chapter, restrict the scope of that section, with respect to the institution of proceedings under it, to such proceedings only as may be instituted upon complaint under oath or affirmation by the mother of the child or children mentioned in the statute. This contention is wholly untenable and completely ignores and overlooks the express language of Section 2 of Article 8 that `Proceedings under this article may be instituted upon complaint made under oath or affirmation by the wife, child or children, or by any other person who may be cognizant of the facts, before any justice of the peace of the county in which such wife, child or children may be. * * *'"”
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.