143 W. Va. 469 - Laslo v. Griffith’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably 147 W. Va. 825 - Walker v. Monongahela Power Company (1963), 147 W. Va. 352 - Payne v. Kinder (1962)
1 federal appellate · 69 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 128 W. Va. 299 - Yuncke v. Welker · 138 W. Va. 613 - Wilson v. Edwards · 121 W. Va. 115 - Webb v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co. · 138 W. Va. 166 - Thrasher v. Amere Gas Utilities Co. · 138 W. Va. 861 - Davis v. Sargent
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When a case involving conflicting testimony and circumstances has been fairly tried, under proper instructions, the verdict of the jury will not be set aside unless plainly contrary to the weight of the evidence or without sufficient evidence to support it.” Point 4, Syllabus, Laslo v. Griffith, 143 W.Va. 469 , 102 S.E.2d 894 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. When the facts relied upon to establish the existence of an agency are undisputed, and conflicting inferences can not be drawn from such facts, the question of the existence of the agency is one of law for the court; but if the facts pertaining to the existence of any agency are conflicting or conflicting inferences may be drawn from them, the question of the existence of the agency is one of fact for the jury. 2. When the evidence is conflicting the questions whether the relation of principal and agent existed and, if so, whether the agent acted within the scope of his authority and in behalf of his principal are questions for the jury.”
3 later decisions 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.