141 W. Va. 170 - Kuhn v. Shreeve’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably 180 W. Va. 660 - Wimer v. Hinkle (1989), 144 W. Va. 296 - Brown v. Crozer Coal & Land Company (1959)
22 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 Seabright v. Seabright · Depue v. Miller · 133 W. Va. 639 - Bank of Mill Creek v. Elk Horn Coal Corp. · 71 W. Va. 303 - Freeman v. Freeman · Anderson v. Cranmer
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"No person offered as a witness in any civil action, suit or proceeding, shall be excluded by reason of his interest in the event of the action, suit or proceeding, or because he is a party thereto, except as follows: No party to any action, suit or proceeding, nor any person interested in the event thereof, nor any person from, through or under whom any such party or interested person derives any interest or title by assignment or otherwise, shall be examined as a witness in regard to any personal transaction or communication between such witness and a person at the time of such examination, deceased!.]””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The test generally accepted is to the effect that if a deceased were alive and testifying, or an insane person were sane and testifying, could the testimony of a witness testifying in opposition to a transaction or communication be disputed by the testimony of the absent witness.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Laches is a delay in the assertion of a known right which works to the disadvantage of another, or such delay as will warrant the presumption that the party has waived his right.”
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.