126 W. Va. 757 - Legg. v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably 176 W. Va. 492 - Roberts v. Stevens Clinic Hospital, Inc. (1986), 147 W. Va. 575 - Lester v. Rose (1963)
34 state decisions
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 Thomas v. Electrical Co. · 123 W. Va. 182 - Mullens v. Lilly · Pickens v. Boom Co. · 78 W. Va. 785 - Holt v. Otis Elevator Co. · Trice v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Upon a clear and satisfactory showing of misconduct by a juror induced, or participated in, by an interested party, no proof is required that the misconduct resulted in prejudice to the complaining party. Prejudice is presumed and unless rebutted by proof the verdict will be set aside. Flesher v. Hale, 22 W.Va. 44 . But where such misconduct is induced by a stranger, or a person having no interest in the litigation, unless manifestly prejudicial, the effect thereof must be established by proof.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““The jury is generally in actions for tort the judge of the amount of damages.... In their assessment in tort cases there is no fixed measure as in cases of contract. This is the case in actions generally, [cite omitted] But in the case of an action under the statute for the death of a person this is peculiarly the case. Our decisions go to the effect that the jury, in such cases, is, under the statute giving the action, absolutely the judge of the amount of the damages, and its finding cannot be disturbed unless the court can see that the jury was actuated by passion, prejudice or corruption.” Id. at 416 . (Emphasis supplied).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Misconduct of jurors in drinking liquor with an interested party [ (the plaintiff) ] at a saloon has been emphatically condemned. Pickens v. Coal River Boom & Timber Company, 58 W.Va. 11, 18 , 50 S.E. 872 , 6 Ann.Cas. 285 [ (1905) ]. Transportation of a juror between his home and the county seat by an interested- attorney [ (one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys) ] during a trial is the basis of an admonition to attorneys and jurors to refrain from such conduct. Mullens v. Lilly, 123 W.Va. 182 , 13 S.E.2d 634 [(1941)]. If an interested attorney or a party to pending litigation■ furnishes food and lodging to a juror who, at the' time thereof, is engaged in the trial of an action in which the attorney or the party is interested, both are guilty of misconduct, and a favorable verdict should not be received or sustained. 39 Am. Jur., Title New Trial, Section 97; 55 A.L.R. 756 , note. See Griffin v. Tomlinson, 155 Va. 150 , 154 S.E. 483 [ (1930) ], wherein the rule stated above is applied to the report of commissioners in a condemnation proceeding.”
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.