150 W. Va. 393 - Sargent v. Malcomb’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 158 W. Va. 741 - Long v. City of Weirton (1975), 152 W. Va. 91 - Sanders v. Roselawn Memorial Gardens, Inc. (1968)
64 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 · 147 W. Va. 825 - Walker v. Monongahela Power Company · 149 W. Va. 246 - Barnett v. Wolfolk · 132 W. Va. 66 - French v. Sinkford · 121 W. Va. 115 - Webb v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A jury verdict in a personal injury case may not be set aside as excessive by the trial court [and a new trial awarded] merely because the award of damages is greater than the trial judge would have made if he had been charged with the responsibility of determining the proper amount of the award. This Court cannot set aside a verdict as excessive in such a case [and award a new trial] merely because a majority or all members of the Court would have made an award of a lesser amount if initially charged with the responsibility of determining the proper amount of the award.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In a civil action to recover damages for personal injuries, the amount which the plaintiff is entitled to recover being indeterminate in character, the verdict of the jury may not be set aside by the trial court or by this Court on the ground that the amount of the verdict is excessive, unless the verdict in that respect is not supported by the evidence or is such that the amount thereof indicates that the jury was influenced by passion, partiality, prejudice or corruption, or entertained a mistaken view of the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jordan v. Bero““There is no exact formula or standard for placing a money value on such matters as pain, suffering, and mental anguish resulting from personal injuries or embarrassment resulting from bodily disfigurement or sears. The law recognizes that the aggregate judgment of twelve duly selected and properly qualified jurors represents the best method yet devised for fixing the amount of just compensation to the injured plaintiffs in such cases.””
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.