185 W. Va. 400 - Arnold v. Turek’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably High v. Howard (1992), 195 W. Va. 246 - Voelker v. Frederick Business Properties Co. (1995)
41 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 152 W. Va. 91 - Sanders v. Roselawn Memorial Gardens, Inc. · 165 W. Va. 305 - Shanholtz v. Monongahela Power Co. · Kennedy v. Davis · 166 W. Va. 581 - Bond v. City of Huntington · 123 W. Va. 516 - Lester v. State Compensation Commissioner
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.
“‘ “A statute is presumed to operate prospectively unless the intent that it shall operate retroactively is clearly expressed by its terms or is necessarily implied from the language of the statute.” Syllabus Point 3, Shanholtz v. Monongahela Power Co., [ 165 W.Va. 305 ], 270 S.E.2d 178 (1980).’ Syllabus Point 2, State ex rel. Manchin v. Lively, 170 W.Va. 672 , 295 S.E.2d 912 (1982).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'The Legislature must be presumed to know the language employed in former acts, and, if in a subsequent statute on the same subject it uses different language in the same connection, the court must presume that a change in the law was intended.’ Syl. pt. 2, Hall v. Baylous, 109 W.Va. 1 , 153 S.E. 293 (1930).” 185 W.Va. at 404 , 407 S.E.2d at 710 . . The DMV also contends that the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The personal representative of the deceased may compromise any claim to damages arising under section five of this article before or after action brought, with the consent of the person or persons who would be entitled to the damages recovered in an action therefor brought by such representative under section six of this article; or if any such persons are incapable from any cause of giving consent, the personal representative may compromise with the approval of the judge of the court wherein any such action has been brought, or if none has been brought, with the consent of the judge of the court wherein such action may be brought." (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.