193 W. Va. 657 - Phillips v. Fox’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 107 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably 196 W. Va. 178 - Burgess v. Porterfield (1996), 201 W. Va. 108 - Walker v. West Virginia Ethics Commission. (1997)
4 federal appellate · 107 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 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Skivolocki v. East Ohio Gas Co. · 194 W. Va. 263 - Burnside v. Burnside · Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v. Caperton
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions of the circuit court, we apply a two-prong deferential standard of review. We review the final order and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard, and we review the circuit court’s underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard. Questions of law are subject to a de novo review.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]ppellate oversight is therefore deferential, and we review the trial court's findings of fact following a bench trial, including mixed fact/law findings, under the clearly erroneous standard. If the trial court makes no findings or applies the wrong legal standard, however, no deference attaches to such an application. Of course, if the trial court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and the correct legal standard is applied, its ultimate ruling will be affirmed as a matter of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“will only be implied if it is demonstrated that, at the time the deed was executed, surface mining was a known and accepted common practice in the locality where the land is located; that it is reasonably necessary for the extraction of the mineral; and that it may be exercised without any substantial burden to the surface owner.”). 15 . Chesapeake similarly attempts to precisely define”
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.