182 W. Va. 745 - Keister v. Talbott’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably 208 W. Va. 486 - Aikens v. Debow (2001), 207 W. Va. 672 - Armor v. Lantz (2000)
23 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 6 Cal. 3d 176 - Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand · Rorrer v. Cooke · Hodges v. Carter · Lieberman v. Employers Ins. of Wausau · Donovan v. Bachstadt
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.
““ ‘ “Where, in the trial of an action at law before a jury, the evidence is conflicting, it is the province of the jury to resolve the conflict, and its verdict thereon will not be disturbed unless believed to be plainly wrong.” Syl. pt. 2, French v. Sinkford, 132 W.Va. 66 , 54 S.E.2d 38 [ (1948) ].’ Syllabus Point 1, McCormick v. Hamilton Business Sys., Inc., 175 W.Va. 222 , 332 S.E.2d 234 (1985).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“at the time Mr. Talbott undertook the title search, the grantor, Mrs. Brown, had no title to the coal under her property. Had Mr. Talbott correctly examined the title, his discovery of the prior outconveyance would not have altered that fact. Thus, the plaintiffs were not deprived of the coal rights as a proximate result of Mr. Tal-bott’s negligence. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ damages for the loss of their bargain, i.e., the failure to acquire ownership of the coal, cannot be charged against Mr. Tal-bott. What they did lose as a result of his negligence was the opportunity to rescind the purchase contract.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Where a client has been injured by an attorney’s negligence in certifying or examining title to real estate, the exact nature of damages may depend on the nature of the Ghent’s interest in the property, the character of the attorney’s error, and the other facts of the case.””
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.