Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 176 W. Va. 570 - Brady v. Hechler

176 W. Va. 570 - Brady v. Hechler’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2016

10 state decisions

601986199020002010decided

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

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 7502

Relies on 163 W. Va. 464 - Parsons v. Consolidated Gas Supply Corp. · Shipley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Drake v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service · 149 W. Va. 381 - State Ex Rel. Smith v. Kelly · 82 Wis. 2d 585 - State Ex Rel. Ahlgrimm v. State Elections Board

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

  1. “Any person who is eligible to hold and seeks to hold an office ... shall file with the secretary of state, if it be an office to be filled by the voters of more than one county, ... a certificate declaring himself a candidate for the nomination for such office, ... Such certificate shall be filed with the secretary of state ... not earlier than the second Monday in January next preceding the primary election day, and not later than the first Saturday of February next preceding the primary election day, and must be received before midnight, eastern standard time, of that day or, if mailed, shall be postmarked before that hour.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[i]gnor[ed] the concept of `substantial compliance[,]' which we have applied so often in the past, [and that] the majority blindly followed the technical letter of the law and failed to uphold the spirit of the law, thereby allowing an injustice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[w]here a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner or by a prescribed person or tribunal it is implied that it shall not be done otherwise or by a different person or tribunal.”
    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.