209 W. Va. 8 - Rhodes v. Workers' Compensation Division’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘ “The primary object in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature.” Syllabus Point 1, Smith v. State Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, 159 W.Va. 108 , 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975).’ Syllabus point 2, Anderson v. Wood, 204 W.Va. 558 , 514 S.E.2d 408 (1999).” Syllabus point 2, Expedited Transportation Systems, Inc. v. Vieweg, 207 W.Va. 90 , 529 S.E.2d 110 (2000).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 213 W. Va. 486 - Longwell v. BOE OF COUNTY OF MARSHALL · 211 W. Va. 71 - Charter Communications VI, PLLC v. Community Antenna Service, Inc.

2. ““As we said in Barnett v. State Workmen’s Compensation Com[m]’r, 153 W.Va. 796, 812 , 172 S.E.2d 698, 707 (1970), ‘[wjhile the findings of fact of the [WCAB] are conclusive unless they are manifestly against the weight of the evidence, the legal conclusions of the appeal board, based upon such findings, are subject to review by the courts.’ Conclusions of law are subject to de novo scrutiny. Syl. pt. 3, Adkins v. Gatson, 192 W.Va. 561 , 453 S.E.2d 395 (1994); Syl. pt. 1, Randolph County Board of Education v. Scalia, 182 W.Va. 289 , 387 S.E.2d 524 (1989). Where the issue on an appeal is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review. Syl. pt. 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995); Syl. pt. 1, University of West Virginia Bd. of Trustees on Behalf of West Virginia University v. Fox, 197 W.Va. 91 , 475 S.E.2d 91 (1996).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Blackburn v. Workers' Compensation Division

3. “If an employee is found to be permanently disabled due to occupational pneumoconiosis, as defined in section one [§ 23-4H] of this article, the percentage of permanent disability shall be determined by the degree of medical impairment that is found by the occupational pneumoconiosis board. The division shall enter an order setting forth the findings of the occupational pneumo-coniosis board with regard to whether the claimant has occupational pneumoco-niosis and the degree of medical impairment, if any, resulting therefrom. That order shall be the final decision of the division for purposes of section one [§ 23-5-1], article five of this chapter. If such a decision is objected to, the office of judges shall affirm the decision of the occupational pneumoconiosis board made following hearing unless the decision is clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 222 W. Va. 420 - Fenton Art Glass Co. v. West Virginia Office of the Insurance Commissioner