164 W. Va. 301 - Burns v. Goff’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably 183 W. Va. 291 - Shrewsbury v. Humphrey (1990), 169 W. Va. 310 - Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Shonk Land Co. (1982)
42 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 149 W. Va. 622 - Bluefield Supply Co. v. Frankel's Appliances, Inc. · 136 W. Va. 569 - McCausland v. Jarrell · 153 W. Va. 613 - Somerville v. Jacobs · 152 W. Va. 688 - State Road Commission v. Bowling · Crosier v. Brown
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘ “The finding of a trial court upon the facts submitted to it in lieu of a jury will be given the same weight as the verdict of a jury and will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless the evidence plainly and decidedly preponderates against such finding.” Syl. pt. 7, Bluefield Supply Company v. Frankels [Frankel’s] Appliances, Inc., 149 W.Va. 622 , 142 S.E.2d 898 (1965).’ Syl. pt. 1, Burns v. Goff, 164 W.Va. 301 , 262 S.E.2d 772 (1980).””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We find this argument to be without merit. The appellants fail to distinguish between the character or purpose of the use and the frequency of a use of the same character. During the prescriptive period, the driveway was used for ingress and egress to a residential dwelling for all those purposes for which a person would use a driveway to their home, e. g. personal access, access of service and delivery vehicles, and for the visitation of friends and relatives. The use of the driveway by the trailer’s occupants was of the same character and for the same purpose, i.e., ingress and egress to a residential dwelling. Although the driveway may now receive more frequent travel of the same character, this is not controlling. It would be a different matter, as an example, if the driveway were now intended to be used for commercial purposes, as this would clearly indicate a change in the character of the use.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.