142 W. Va. 426 - Quesenberry v. Estep’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably 146 W. Va. 22 - Farley v. Graney (1960), Guardian Title Co. v. Bell (1991)
43 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 Lawton v. Steele · Nectow v. City of Cambridge · Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners · Coppage v. State · Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Illinois ex rel. Drainage Commissioners
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As a general rule the Legislature, in delegating discretionary power to an administrative agency, such as a board or a commission, must prescribe adequate standards expressed in the statute or inherent in its subject matter and such standards must be sufficient to guide such agency in the exercise of the power conferred upon it.” Syl. Pt. 3, Quesenberry v. Estep, 142 W.Va. 426 , 95 S.E.2d 832 (1956).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““The Legislature being the depository of this power, may delegate it to boards and commissions and, as a general rule, should set up standards for the guidance of such boards and commissions in the use and application of the power granted. However, there are exceptions to this requirement. The exception to the rule is well stated in 42 Am.Jur. 345, wherein it is stated: “ ‘ * * * The rule requiring an express standard to guide discretion is recognized as properly applied to statutes or ordinances regulating ordinary lawful activity, but to be subject to the exception that where it is impracticable to lay down a definite comprehensive rule, such as where the regulation turns upon the question of personal fitness or where the act relates to the administration of a police regulation and is necessary to protect the general welfare, morals, and safety of the public, it is not essential that a specific prescribed standard be expressed. * * * > “This statement is supported by the ruling of this Court in West Central Producers Co-Operative Association v. Commissioner of Agriculture, 124 W.Va. 81 , 20 S.E.2d 797 , and State v. Bunner, 126 W.Va. 280 , 27 S.E.2d 823 .” 133 W.Va. at 192-93 , 55 S.E.2d at 270 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[Ajnother uniformly recognized exception to the general rule, by which the legislature is much less restricted [is] when its delegation of legislative authority is to an administrative body created for the care of public health.... [W]here the subject matter of the administrative authority is public health, the power is uniformly held not to originate in the Constitution, but from “the police power” .... Courts generally [ ] take the position that regulations and rules duly promulgated by a legally constituted board of health will be construed as valid wherever possible, if reasonably calculated to achieve the result intended by the legislature.”
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.