Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 174 W. Va. 550 - In Re Markle

174 W. Va. 550 - In Re Markle’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
2
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably 193 W. Va. 229 - McDougal v. McCammon (1995), 194 W. Va. 431 - State Ex Rel. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Canady (1995)

41 state decisions

2601984199020002010decided

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 United States v. Nobles · Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Lyman Lamb Co. · Pacelli v. United States · United States v. Pfizer Inc. · Petrusch v. Teamsters Local 317

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

  1. “The Supreme Court of Appeals will make an independent evaluation of the record and recommendations of the Judicial [Hearing] Board in disciplinary proceedings.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “for the material and that he cannot obtain the same or its equivalent through other means”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[A] party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under subdivision (b)(1) of this rule and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative (including the party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the party's case and that the party is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.”
    3 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.