Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 174 W. Va. 369 - Kline v. McCloud

174 W. Va. 369 - Kline v. McCloud’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
2
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably 181 W. Va. 779 - Dadisman v. Moore (1989), 223 W. Va. 14 - In Re Tax Assessment of Foster Foundation's Woodlands Retirement Community (2009)

28 state decisions

1201985199020002010decided

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 Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co. · Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers · Ex Parte Barber · Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Township of Wakefield · Southern Ry Co v. Watts Atlantic & Y Ry Co

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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he price paid for property in an arm's length transaction, while not conclusive, is relevant evidence of its true and actual value.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““[t]he system of taxation unfortunately will always have some inequality and nonuniformity attendant with such governmental function. It seems that perfect equality in taxation would be utopian, but yet, as a practicality, unattainable. We must satisfy ourselves with a principle of reason that practical equality is the standard to be applied in these matters, and this standard is satisfied when the tax system is free of systematic and intentional departures from this principle.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Where there is intentional discrimination against a taxpayer by knowingly applying a different formula to the computation of its taxes from that generally used for all other taxpayers in similar circumstances, such discrimination cannot be excused as a sporadic deviation and the aggrieved taxpayer is entitled to have its taxes computed in the same manner and on the same basis as the favored taxpayers.”
    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.