172 W. Va. 777 - Hinerman v. Levin’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably 186 W. Va. 49 - Pries v. Watt (1991), 188 W. Va. 157 - Hinerman v. Daily Gazette Co., Inc. (1992)
37 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 International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Kulko v. Superior Court of California in and for City and County of San Francisco · 157 W. Va. 778 - Toler v. Shelton
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining whether a default judgment should be entered in the face of a Rule 6(b) motion or vacated upon a Rule 60(b) motion, the trial court should consider: (1) The degree of prejudice suffered by the plaintiff from the delay in answering; (2) the presence of material issues of fact and meritorious defenses; (3) the significance of the interests at stake; and (4) the degree of intransigence on the part of the defaulting party.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Appellate review of the propriety of a default judgment focuses on the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in entering the default judgment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“On or after the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred seventy-one, no attorney’s fee in excess of twenty-five percent of any award granted shall be charged or received by an attorney for a claimant or dependent. In no case shall the fee received by the attorney of such claimant or dependent be in excess of twenty-five percent of the benefits to be paid during a period of two hundred eight weeks. This paragraph shall not apply to awards made prior to the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred seventy-one.... [A]ny contract entered into in excess of twenty-five percent of the benefits to be paid during a period of two hundred eight weeks, as herein provided, shall be unlawful and unenforceable as contrary to the public policy of this State and any fee charged or received by an attorney in violation thereof shall be deemed an unlawful practice and render the attorney subject to disciplinary action.”
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.