192 W. Va. 561 - Adkins v. Gatson’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
90 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably 196 W. Va. 178 - Burgess v. Porterfield (1996), 206 W. Va. 691 - Maikotter v. University of West Virginia Board of Trustees/West Virginia University (1999)
90 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 166 W. Va. 675 - Kisamore v. Rutledge · 191 W. Va. 134 - Francis O. Day Co. v. Director, Division of Environmental Protection · 192 W. Va. 383 - Donley v. Bracken · 187 W. Va. 219 - Adkins v. INCO Alloys International Inc. · 177 W. Va. 232 - Courtney v. Rutledge
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The findings of fact of the Board of Review of the West Virginia Department of Employment Security are entitled to substantial deference unless a reviewing court believes the findings are clearly wrong. If the question on review is one purely of law, no deference is given and the standard of judicial review by the court is de novo.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage“The findings of fact of the Board of Review of the [West Virginia Bureau of Employment Programs] are entitled to substantial deference unless a reviewing court believes the findings are clearly wrong. If the question on review is one purely of law, no deference is given and the standard of judicial review by the court is de novo.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“We hold that the appellant has failed to establish a continuing employment contract under any theory that would qualify as an exception to the statute. The appellant does not claim that the Board of Education made any specific promises or that she acted to her detriment in relying on any understanding with the Board of Education in reference to continued employment for summer work. Additionally, there is no evidence that there was any kind of employee handbook or other written materials that would reasonably suggest that employment for one summer guaranteed employment for succeeding years. The absence of a promise or written materials suggests that any summertime employment arrangement prior to the summer of 1992 could not be the basis for any reasonable expectation establishing a continuing relationship. Thus, the Board of Education’s failure to rehire the appellant for her desired summer job in 1992 does not remove the appellant from the statutory restrictions.”
1 later decision 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.