Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 138 W. Va. 437 - Brewer v. Appalachian Constructors, Inc.

138 W. Va. 437 - Brewer v. Appalachian Constructors, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
2
states following
June 2004
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 2004 · most notably 158 W. Va. 741 - Long v. City of Weirton (1975), 176 W. Va. 492 - Roberts v. Stevens Clinic Hospital, Inc. (1986)

8 federal appellate · 31 state decisions

220195319601970198019902000decided

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. · 135 W. Va. 739 - Brewer v. Appalachian Constructors, Inc. · 136 W. Va. 761 - Law v. Phillips · 118 W. Va. 545 - Meyn v. Dulaney-Miller Auto Co. · 106 W. Va. 155 - Bell v. Huntington Development & Gas 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““As a corollary to the foregoing it follows that it then and there became the duty of the trial court in the conduct of this important case to require the jury to retire for the purpose of arriving at and returning a proper verdict; and in doing so the trial court ex necessitate had the duty, as it did, to tell the jury why the court had rejected its verdict, and its instructions in that regard were clear, and properly informed the jury as to its duty. By this oral instruction the court told the jury that ‘If you find for the plaintiff against any one or more of the four defendants, you cannot divide the amount of your verdict between the defendants against whom you find, but must find one sum against all of those against whom you find.’” Id,., at 448.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Agency by representation or estoppel, sometimes designated as `apparent agency', involves a case in which there may be no agency in fact, but where the principal or employer holds out or represents a person to be his agent or employee, and a third party or parties rely thereon, in which case the person making the representation is estopped to deny the agency.”
    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.