218 W. Va. 628 - Wilson v. Bernet’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 16 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e therefore hold that an adverse expert witness enjoys civil immunity for his/her testimony and/or participation in judicial proceedings where such testimony and/or participation are relevant to said judicial proceedings.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Day v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp. · Michael Day, Jr. v. Johns Hopkins Health System

2. “The issues presented by the instant matter involve questions of law certified to this Court. When called upon to consider certified questions, we employ a plenary review and review anew the answers provided by the circuit court. “The appellate standard of review of questions of law answered and certified by a circuit court is de novo.” Syl. pt. 1, Gallapoo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 197 W.Va. 172 , 475 S.E.2d 172 (1996). See also Syl. pt. 1, Bower v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 206 W.Va. 133 , 522 S.E.2d 424 (1999) (“This Court undertakes plenary review of legal issues presented by certified question from a federal district or appellate court.”); Syl. pt. 1, Light v. Allstate Ins. Co., 203 W.Va. 27 , 506 S.E.2d 64 (1998) (“A de novo standard is applied by this Court in addressing the legal issues presented by a certified question from a federal district or appellate court.”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 221 W. Va. 472 - Preussag International Steel Corp. v. March-Westin Co.

3. “(1) the complaining parent has a right to establish or maintain a parental or custodial relationship with his/her minor child; (2) a party outside of the relationship between the complaining parent and his/her child intentionally interfered with the complaining parent's parental or custodial relationship with his/her child by removing or detaining the child from returning to the complaining parent, without that parent's consent, or by otherwise preventing the complaining parent from exercising his/her parental or custodial rights; (3) the outside party's intentional interference caused harm to the complaining parent's parental or custodial relationship with his/her child; and (4) damages resulted from such interference.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Coward v. Wellmont Health System