Finch v. Inspectech, LLC’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 148 W. Va. 160 - Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New York · 192 W. Va. 189 - Painter v. Peavy · 194 W. Va. 138 - Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L. · 60 Cal. 2d 92 - Tunkl v. Regents of University of California · 195 W. Va. 573 - Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Department
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.
“[w]e previously have held that “ ‘[i]t is the province of the Court ... to interpret a written contract.’ Syl. Pt. 1[, in part], Stephens v. Bartlett, 118 W.Va. 421 , 191 S.E. 550 (1937).” Syl. pt. 1, in part, Orteza v. Monongalia Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 173 W.Va. 461 , 318 S.E.2d 40 (1984). Therefore, “we apply a de novo standard of review to [a] circuit court’s interpretation of [á] contract.” Zimmerer v. Romano, 223 W.Va. 769, 777 , 679 S.E.2d 601, 609 (2009) (per curiam) (citation omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a] clause in an agreement exempting a party from tort liability is, however, unenforceable on grounds of public policy if, for example, (1) the clause exempts a party charged with a duty of public service from tort liability to a party to whom that duty is owed, or (2) the injured party is similarly a member of a class which is protected against the class to which the party inflicting the harm belongs.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.