Swartz v. Public Service Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “ ‘Moot questions or abstract propositions, the decision of which would avail nothing in the determination of controverted rights of persons or of property, are not properly cognizable by a court.’ State ex rel. Lilly v. Carter, 63 W.Va. 684, point 1, Syllabus, 60 S.E. 873 [(1908)].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Arnold Agency v. West Virginia Lottery Commission
  West Virginia Supreme Court· 1999-12-13· cited 22×
• Kemp v. State
  West Virginia Supreme Court· 1997-12-16· cited 16×
• Orwasky v. Chuma
  West Virginia Supreme Court· 1964-03-17· cited 9×
• State Ex Rel. Canterbury v. Paul
  West Virginia Supreme Court· 1999-10-18· cited 8×
• Rockland Realty Corp. v. Lilly
  West Virginia Supreme Court· 1997-05-29· cited 1×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn.
  Supreme Court· 1897-03-22· cited 802×
• Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1944-05-01· cited 66×
• Boise City Irr. & Land Co. v. Clark
  Ninth Circuit· 1904-05-31· cited 55×
• Story v. Commonwealth
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1940-06-10· cited 2×