Murphy v. Holland’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We first consider whether the trial court erred in overruling Murphy’s plea of laches. Concerning such a plea, we said in Morris v. Mosby, 227 Va. 517 , 317 S.E.2d 493 (1984): When a trial court considers the defense of laches, it does not apply an absolute rule such as a statute of limitations, but instead, the court examines each case in light of the particular circumstances. Therefore, whether under the circumstances of a given case a claim is barred by laches is primarily a decision resting within the discretion of the trial court. Absent an abuse of discretion, its decision will not be disturbed on appeal. Id. at 521 , 317 S.E.2d at 496 (citations omitted). And in Hamilton v. Newbold, 154 Va. 345 , 153 S.E. 681 (1930), we said: [L]aches or delay, in order to be effectual as a bar to the party [against whose claim the defense of laches is asserted], must be accompanied with circumstances and facts showing an intention on his part to abandon the [claim], [The delay] must be unreasonable and injurious to the other party.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Davis v. Stafford County Board of Supervisors