113 W. Va. 17 - Lusk v. Lusk’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
1 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably 3 Cal. 3d 914 - Gibson v. Gibson (1971), Goller v. White (1963)
1 district · 43 state decisions — followed in 25 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 110 W. Va. 1 - Securo v. Securo · 105 W. Va. 380 - Criss v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Jenkins v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. · 103 W. Va. 69 - Conwell v. Hays
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“But a different situation arises where the parent is protected by insurance in his vocational capacity. The rule followed in the Securo case (Securo v. Securo, 110 W. Va. 1 , 156 S.E. 750 ) concedes the commission of a civil wrong on the child by the parent, but palliates *Page 238 the wrong (in case of passive negligence) in the interest of parental discipline and control and of domestic harmony. A wise provision when so confined and where pertinent to the case. McCurdy, 43 Harv. L.R. 1079, sec. 5. But as was said in the case of Dunlap v. Dunlap (N.H.), 71 A.L.R. 1055 : `The law does not make fetishes of ideas,' and we must not exalt this rule above ordinary common sense. A maxim of the law (and of the ages for that matter) is when the reason for a rule ceases the rule itself ceases (cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex.) There is no reason for applying the rule in the instant case. This action is not unfriendly as between the daughter and the father. A recovery by her is no loss to him. In fact, their interests unite in favor of her recovery, but without hint of `domestic fraud and collusion' (charged in some cases). There is no filial recrimination and no pitting of the daughter against the father in this case. No strained family relations will follow. On the contrary, the daughter must honor the father for attempting to provide compensation against her misfortune. Family harmony is assured instead of disrupted. A wrong is righted instead of `privileged.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * we must not exalt this rule above ordinary common sense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.