207 W. Va. 83 - State Ex Rel. Davis v. Vieweg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A case is not rendered moot even though a party to the litigation has had a change in status such that he no longer has a legally cognizable interest in the litigation or the issues have lost theft adversarial vitality, if such issues are capable of repetition and yet will evade review.’ Syllabus point 1, State ex rel. M.C.H. v. Kind er, 173 W.Va. 387 , 317 S.E.2d 150 (1984).” Syllabus point 2, State ex rel. Davis v. Vieweg, 207 W.Va. 83 , 529 S.E.2d 103 (2000).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 207 W. Va. 154 - State Ex Rel. Jeanette H. v. Pancake · Velogol v. City of Weirton

2. “[t]hree factors to be considered in deciding whether to address technically moot issues are as follows: first, the court will determine whether sufficient collateral consequences will result from determination of the questions presented so as to justify relief; second, while technically moot in the immediate context, questions of great public interest may nevertheless be addressed for the future guidance of the bar and of the public; and third, issues which may be repeatedly presented to the trial court, yet escape review at the appellate level because of their fleeting and determinate nature, may appropriately be decided.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 207 W. Va. 154 - State Ex Rel. Jeanette H. v. Pancake · 209 W. Va. 543 - Hart v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

3. ““A writ of mandamus will not issue unless three elements coexist — (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the relief sought; (2) a legal duty on the part of respondent to do the thing which the petitioner seeks to compel; and (3) the absence of another adequate remedy.” Syllabus point 2, State ex rel. Kucera v. City of Wheeling, 153 W.Va. 538 , 170 S.E.2d 367 (1969).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 208 W. Va. 673 - Shaffer v. West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways