Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 142 W. Va. 259 - Hurt v. Gwinn

142 W. Va. 259 - Hurt v. Gwinn’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
2
states following
May 1990
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 1990

15 state decisions

6019561960197019801990decided

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 138 W. Va. 613 - Wilson v. Edwards · 123 W. Va. 234 - Boyce v. Black · 123 W. Va. 428 - Miller v. Blue Ridge Transportation Co. · 131 W. Va. 816 - Kelly v. Checker White Cab, Inc. · 126 W. Va. 741 - Young v. Wheby

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A guest passenger voluntarily following such course of known hazardous conduct, [in this case drinking alcoholic liquor in frequent and large amounts] fraught with strong possibility of the very type of accident which occurred, can not be permitted to recover merely because she had no opportunity to escape injury after the accident began to take place—in the instant case, after the automobile of the defendant began to skid. The fact cannot be avoided or ignored that plaintiff's decedent had a number of opportunities to leave the automobile of defendant after the trip began and after she had knowledge, or should have had knowledge, in the known circumstances, of the great danger incident to the drive.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Under the laws of this state, the driver of an automobile owes to an invited guest reasonable care for his safety; but the guest must exercise ordinary care for his own safety, and when he knows, or by due diligence should know, that the driver is not taking proper precautions, it becomes the duty of the guest to remonstrate; and failure to do so bars his right to damages in case of injury.” 1”
    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.