128 W. Va. 299 - Yuncke v. Welker’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 213 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 218 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 194 W. Va. 97 - Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc. (1995), 147 W. Va. 825 - Walker v. Monongahela Power Company (1963)
5 federal appellate · 213 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 121 W. Va. 115 - Webb v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co. · Sorrell v. Scheuer · 126 W. Va. 732 - Taylor v. City of Huntington · Ewing v. Lanark Fuel Co. · Deputy v. Kimmell
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 218 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An abuse of discretion is more likely to result from excluding, rather than admitting, evidence that is relevant but which is remote in point of time, place and circumstances, and that the better practice is to admit whatever matters are relevant and leave the question of their weight to the jury, unless the court can clearly see that they are too remote to be material.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“A person lawfully in a public highway may rely upon the exercise of reasonable care by drivers of vehicles to avoid injury. Failure to anticipate omission of such care does not render him negligent. A pedestrian is not bound, as a matter of law, to be continuously looking or listening to ascertain if automobiles or other vehicles are approaching, under penalty that if he fails to do so and is injured his own negligence will defeat recovery of damages sustained.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is a general rule that where damages are indeterminate, mere difference of opinion between the court and the jury as to what the verdict should be, will not justify the court in disturbing the verdict. To warrant such action the verdict must evince passion, prejudice, pártiality, or corruption upon the part of the jury.”
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.