192 W. Va. 353 - Mongold v. Mayle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he purpose behind the elective-share provision set forth in W.Va.Code, 42-3-1 [1992] is to prevent spousal disinheritance in order to ensure that the surviving spouse's contribution to the acquisition of property during the marriage is recognized and in order to ensure that the surviving spouse has continuing financial support after the death of his or her spouse.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Doris E. Young, Administratrix v. Gary Douglas Young · In Re Estate of Sprenkle-Hill

2. “ls) The surviving spouse of a decedent who dies domiciled in this state has a right of election, against either the will or the intestate share, under the limitations and conditions stated in this part, to take the elective-share percentage of the augmented estate, determined by the length of time the spouse and the decedent were married to each other, in accordance with the following schedule[.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 233 W. Va. 505 - Ross Stanley v. Carolyn Haynes Stanley

3. “[t]o hold otherwise, would allow a spouse to disinherit his or her spouse, thereby defeating the purpose behind the elective-share theory of the Revised Uniform Probate Code.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Estate of Sprenkle-Hill