Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 211 W. Va. 451 - Painter v. Coleman

211 W. Va. 451 - Painter v. Coleman’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
July 2005
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 195 W. Va. 608 - Cox v. Amick · Thomas v. BOARD OF ED., COUNTY OF McDOWELL · 147 W. Va. 331 - Seagraves v. Legg · Weiss v. Soto · 122 W. Va. 559 - In Re: Conley

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

  1. “When the intention is ascertained from an examination of all its parts the problem is solved. The interpretation of a will is simply a judicial determination of what the testator intended; and the rules of interpretation and construction for that purpose formulated by the courts in the evolution of jurisprudence through the centuries are founded on reason and practical experience. It is wise to follow them, bearing in mind always that the intention is the guiding star, and when that is clear from a study of the will in its entirety, any arbitrary rule, however ancient and sacrosanct, applicable to any of its parts, must yield to the clear intention.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In construing a will, effect must be given to every word of the will, if any sensible meaning can be assigned to it not inconsistent with the general intention of the whole will taken together. Words are not to be changed or rejected unless they manifestly conflict with the plain intention of the testator, or unless they are absurd, unintelligible or unmeaning, for want of any subject to which they can be applied.”
    1 later decision 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.