186 W. Va. 369 - Pote v. Jarrell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘ “In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict the court should: (1) consider the evidence most favorable to the prevailing party; (2) assume that all conflicts in the evidence were resolved by the jury in favor of the prevailing party; (3) assume as proved all facts which the prevailing party’s evidence tends to prove; and (4) give to the prevailing party the benefit of all favorable inferences which reasonably may be drawn from the facts proved.” Syllabus Point 5, Orr v. Crowder, 173 W.Va. 335 , 315 S.E.2d 593 (1984).’ Syl. pt. 1, Pinnacle Mining v. Duncan Aircraft Sales, 182 W.Va. 307 , 387 S.E.2d 542 (1989).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 216 W. Va. 199 - Keesee v. General Refuse Service, Inc. · 189 W. Va. 621 - Horan v. Turnpike Ford, Inc.

2. “(1) that the prosecution was set on foot and conducted to its termination, resulting in plaintiff’s discharge; (2) that it was caused or procured by defendant; (3) that it was without probable cause; and (4) that it was malicious.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rhodes v. Smithers · Walker v. Tyler County Commission

3. ““With respect to the issue of whether there was probable cause to instigate a criminal prosecution against Pote, there was no evidence presented to the jury indicating that Pote feloniously and willfully damaged the bulldozer. Furthermore, the jury heard testimony from the magistrate that the appellants were informed that this was a civil matter rather than a criminal matter. Moreover, the appellees introduced evidence to the jury attempting to show that the appellants misused the criminal process by initiating criminal proceedings against Pote for the sole purpose of obtaining payment for damages to the bulldozer. Thus, we find that Pote established the elements enumerated in Truman, supra, and in Wayne County Bank, supra, and presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that they proved those elements by a preponderance of the evidence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 193 W. Va. 91 - Hines v. Hills Department Stores, Inc.