157 W. Va. 882 - Mahoney v. Walter’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably 168 W. Va. 147 - Sticklen v. Kittle (1981), 166 W. Va. 775 - Security National Bank & Trust Co. v. First W. Va. Bancorp., Inc. (1981)
51 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 152 W. Va. 91 - Sanders v. Roselawn Memorial Gardens, Inc. · Stuart v. Lake Washington Realty Corporation · Stuart v. Lake Washington Realty Corp. · 148 W. Va. 443 - Pettry v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company · 141 W. Va. 595 - Martin v. Williams
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * A nuisance is anything which annoys or disturbs the free use of one’s property, or which renders its ordinary use of physical occupation uncomfortable. * * * A nuisance is anything which interferes with the rights of a citizen, either in person, property, the enjoyment of his property, or his comfort. * * * A condition is a nuisance when it clearly appears that enjoyment of property is materially lessened, and physical comfort of persons in their homes is materially interfered with thereby. * * * When the prosecution of a business, of itself lawful, in a strictly residential district, impairs the enjoyment of homes in the neighborhood, and infringes upon the well-being, comfort, repose, and enjoyment of the ordinary normal individual residing therein, the carrying on of such business in such locality becomes a nuisance, and may be enjoined. * * *” 205 S.E.2d at 697 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“As a general rule, a fair test as to whether a business or a particular use of a property in connection with the operation of the business constitutes a nuisance, is the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the operation or use in relation to the particular locality and under all the existing circumstances.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Unless an absolute right to injunctive relief is conferred by statute, the power to grant or refuse or to modify, continue, or dissolve a temporary or a permanent injunction, whether preventive or mandatory in character, ordinarily rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, according to the facts and the circumstances of the particular case; and its action in the exercise of its discretion will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of such discretion.”
2 later decisions 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.