188 W. Va. 197 - Lieving v. Hadley’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
328 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 332 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably 196 W. Va. 692 - Powderidge Unit Owners Ass'n v. Highland Properties, Ltd. (1996), 193 W. Va. 289 - James M.B. v. Carolyn M. (1995)
328 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 148 W. Va. 160 - Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New York · Lipscomb's Adm'r v. Condon · 184 W. Va. 763 - Rowan v. McKnight · 171 W. Va. 516 - Herring v. Carroll · 87 W. Va. 254 - Carter v. Carter
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 332 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Per curiam opinions ... are used to decide only the specific case before the Court; everything in a per curiam opinion beyond the syllabus point is merely obiter dicta .... Other courts, such as many of the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals, have gone to non-published (not-to-be-cited) opinions to deal with similar cases. We do not have such a specific practice, but instead use published per curiam opinions. However, if rules of law or accepted ways of doing things are to be changed, then this Court will do so in a signed opinion, not a per curiam opinion.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A motion which would otherwise qualify as a Rule 59(e) motion that is not filed and served within ten days of the entry of judgment is a Rule 60(b) motion regardless of how styled and does not toll the four month appeal period for appeal to this court.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““1. A motion to amend or alter judgment, even though it is incorrectly denominated as a motion to ‘reconsider’, Vacate’, ‘set aside’, or ‘reargue’ is a Rule 59(e) motion if filed and served within ten days of entry of judgment. “2. Calling a Rule 59(e) motion a motion to ‘reconsider’, Vacate’, ‘set aside’, or ‘reargue’ is confusing to a trial court, and where such motions are filed within ten days of judgment they should be correctly styled as Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend judgment.””
2 later decisions 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.