Coleman v.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 4 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the issue to be precluded is identical to the issue already litigated, (2) the issue was actually determined in the prior proceeding, (3) the determination of the issue was an essential part of the decision in the prior proceeding, (4) the prior judgment was final and valid, and (5) the party against whom estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 225 W. Va. 128 - Caperton v. AT Massey Coal Co., Inc. · 229 W. Va. 1 - Baldau v. Jonkers

2. “Statutory interpretation necessarily begins with an analysis of the language of the statute. See Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth, 471 U.S. 681, 685 , 105 S.Ct. 2297 , 85 L.Ed.2d 692 (1985). In analyzing statutory language, we must first “determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning.” Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340 , 117 S.Ct. 843 , 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997). Our determination of whether a statute is ambiguous is guided “by reference to the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole.” Id. at 341 , 519 U.S. 337 , 117 S.Ct. 843 , 136 L.Ed.2d 808 . If the language is plain and “the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent,” we need not inquire further. United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235, 240-41 , 109 S.Ct. 1026 , 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989). In that situation, “the sole function of the courts is to enforce [the statute] according to its terms.” Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485 , 37 S.Ct. 192 , 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Tubman

3. “The trustee may avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property, or any obligation incurred by the debtor, that was made or incurred on or within one year before the date of the filing of the petition, if the debtor voluntarily or involuntarily— (A) made such transfer or incurred such obligation with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any entity to which the debtor was or became, on or after the date that such transfer was made or such obligation was incurred, indebted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Savage & Associates, P.C. Ex Rel. Teligent, Inc. v. Mandl