174 W. Va. 35 - Everett v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 2013
11 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 Napoleon Dotson v. William a Milliken · 129 W. Va. 851 - Ross v. Midelburg · 172 W. Va. 116 - Lotz v. Atamaniuk · Brown v. Western Maryland Railway Co. · 102 W. Va. 355 - Kimmell v. Mohler
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce the action or forbearance is enforceable not- withstanding the Statute of Frauds if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach is to be limited as justice requires. In determining whether injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise, the following circumstances are significant: (a) the availability and adequacy of other remedies, particularly cancellation and restitution; (b) the definite and substantial character of the action or forbearance in relation to the remedy sought; (c) the extent to which the action or forbearance corroborates evidence of the making and terms of the promise, or the making and terms are otherwise established by clear and convincing evidence; (d) the reasonableness of the action or forbearance; (e) the extent to which the action or forbearance was foreseeable by the promisor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he rights and duties of the parties to a contract are controlled by the law in effect at the time the contract was executed.” McGinnis v. Cayton, 173 W.Va. 102, 105 , 312 S.E.2d 765, 768 (1984). Consequently, we will consider Mr. Moran's argument under W. Va. Code § 46-8-319 , because that statute was in place when the alleged agreement was made. 8 . W.Va.Code § 46-8-319 is merely one of many statutes of frauds in West Virginia law. The most frequently cited statute of frauds is W. Va.Code, 55-1-1 [1923]; however, W. Va.Code, 36-1-3 [1923] requires contracts for the sale or lease of land to be in writing; W. Va.Code, 46-1-206 [1963] provides that contracts for the sale of certain types of personal property be in writing; W. Va. Code, 46-2-201 [1963] requires contracts for the sale of goods for a price of more than $500 be in writing; ... and, W. Va.Code, 46-9-203 [1963] requires security interests in property under certain circumstances to be in writing. Any statutory provision that requires agreements to be in writing can be referred to generally as a "statute of frauds.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“is merely one of many statutes of frauds in West Virginia law. The most frequently cited statute of frauds is W. Va.Code, 55-1-1 [1923]; however, W. Va.Code, 36-1-3 [1923] requires contracts for the sale or lease of land to be in writing; W. Va.Code, 46-1-206 [1963] provides that contracts for the sale of certain types of personal property be in writing; W. Va. Code, 46-2-201 [1963] requires contracts for the sale of goods for a price of more than $500 be in writing; ... and, W. Va.Code, 46-9-203 [1963] requires security interests in property under certain circumstances to be in writing. Any statutory provision that requires agreements to be in writing can be referred to generally as a "statute of frauds." All of these statutes display common characteristics and they all create similar problems.”
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.