Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 210 W. Va. 621 - In Re Edward B.

210 W. Va. 621 - In Re Edward B.’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
2
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

55 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Troxel v. Granville · 196 W. Va. 294 - State v. LaRock · 196 W. Va. 223 - In Interest of Tiffany Marie S. · 185 W. Va. 613 - In the Interest of Carlita B. · 168 W. Va. 306 - Addair v. Bryant

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

  1. “Where it appears from the record that the process established by the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings and related statutes for the disposition of cases involving children adjudicated to be abused or neglected has been substantially disregarded or frustrated, the resulting order of disposition will be vacated and the case remanded for compliance with that process and entry of an appropriate dispositional order.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “As this most important area of the law has expanded, this Court has insisted that the directives of applicable rules and legislative enactments must be carefully identified, respected, and incorporated within our court system. The Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings and the related statutes detailing fair, prompt, and thorough procedures for child abuse and neglect cases are not mere general guidance; rather, they are stated in mandatory terms and vest carefully described and circumscribed discretion in our courts, intended to protect the due process rights of the parents as well as the rights of the innocent children.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Because the errors, as assigned in the Appellant's petition for appeal, were neither • assigned nor argued in the Appellant's brief, they are hereby waived.”); Tieman v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 203 W Va. 135, 140 n. 10, 506 S.E.2d 578 , 583 n. 10 (1998) (”
    2 later decisions 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.