194 W. Va. 263 - Burnside v. Burnside’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
280 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 280 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably 196 W. Va. 178 - Burgess v. Porterfield (1996), 196 W. Va. 535 - Banker v. Banker (1996)
280 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 Langnes v. Green · 172 W. Va. 158 - LaRue v. LaRue · Mims v. Mims · 85 Ill. 2d 217 - In Re Marriage of Rogers · 183 W. Va. 451 - Whiting v. Whiting
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 280 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In reviewing challenges to findings made by a family law master that also were adopted by a circuit court, a three-pronged standard of review is applied. Under these circumstances, a final equitable distribution order is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard; the underlying factual findings are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of law and statutory interpretations are subject to a de novo review.”
56 later decisions quote this exact passage“Equitable distribution under W.Va.Code, 48-2-1, et seq., is a three-step process. The first step is to classify the parties’ property as marital or nonmarital. The second step is to value the marital assets. The third step is to divide the marital estate between the parties in accordance with the principles contained in W.Va. Code, 48-2-32.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“A circuit court should review findings of fact made by a family law master only under a clearly erroneous standard, and it should review the application of law to the facts under an abuse of discretion standard.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.