185 W. Va. 239 - Jubb v. Letterle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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

1. “‘ “ ‘The fundamental rule in construing covenants and restrictive agreements is that the intention of the parties governs. That intention is gathered from the entire instrument by which the restriction is created, the surrounding circumstances and the objects which the covenant is designed to accomplish.’ Wallace v. St. Clair, 147 W.Va. 377, 390 , 127 S.E.2d 742, 751 (1962).” Syl. pt. 2, Allemong v. Frendzel, [178] W.Va. [601], 363 S.E.2d 487 (1987).’ Syl. pt. 3, Jubb v. Letterle, 185 W.Va. 239 , 406 S.E.2d 465 (1991).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 192 W. Va. 280 - Armstrong v. Stribling · Jubb v. Letterle

2. ““it was the intention of the appellees, upon placing the restrictive covenants on file, to create a general plan or common scheme of development restricting the usage of all lots within the subdivision for the mutual benefit of all owners. [And further] that each individual owner purchasing property within the area originally designated Mountainaire Village, as depicted in the February 14, 1982, 2 Stultz drawing, acquired a right to enforce the restrictive covenants against any other owner or owners.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jubb v. Letterle