206 W. Va. 512 - State Ex Rel. McGraw v. Combs Services’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[W]here the language of a statutory provision is plain, its terms should be applied as written and not construed.” DeVane v. Kennedy, 205 W.Va. 519, 529 , 519 S.E.2d 622, 632 (1999) (citations omitted). See also Syl. pt. 4, in part, Daily Gazette Co., Inc. v. West Virginia Dev. Office, 206 W.Va. 51 , 521 S.E.2d 543 (1999) ("A statutory provision which is clear and unambiguous and plainly expresses the legislative intent will not be interpreted by the courts but will be given full force and effect.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)); Syl. pt. 5, in part, Walker v. West Virginia Ethics Comm'n, 201 W.Va. 108 , 492 S.E.2d 167 [(1997)] ("Where the language of a statute is clear and without ambiguity the plain meaning is to be accepted without resorting to the rules of interpretation.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 209 W. Va. 8 - Rhodes v. Workers' Compensation Division

2. “In gleaning legislative intent, we endeavor to construe the scrutinized provision consistently with the purpose of the general body of law of which it forms a part. “ ‘Statutes which relate to the same subject matter should be read and applied together so that the Legislature’s intention can be gathered from the whole of the enactments.’ Syllabus Point 3, Smith v. State Workmen’s Compensation Comm’r, 159 W.Va. 108 , 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975).” Syllabus point 3, Boley v. Miller, 187 W.Va. 242 , 418 S.E.2d 352 (1992).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 208 W. Va. 11 - Keplinger v. Virginia Electric & Power Co.

3. “`Where the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.' Syllabus point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 208 W. Va. 36 - Mitchell v. Broadnax