Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 151 S.E.2d 330 - Hollen v. Linger

Hollen v. Linger’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
4
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 37 Ill. 2d 494 - Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern Railroad (1967), 167 W. Va. 779 - Ratlief v. Yokum (1981)

40 state decisions

100196619701980199020002010decided

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 De Moss v. United States · 145 W. Va. 797 - Overton v. Fields · 138 W. Va. 639 - Matthews v. Cumberland & Allegheny Gas Co. · 138 W. Va. 613 - Wilson v. Edwards · Norwood v. Kirkpatrick

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

  1. ““ ‘An erroneous instruction is presumed to be prejudicial and warrants a new trial unless it appears that the complaining party was not prejudiced by such instruction.’ Point 2, syllabus, Hollen v. Linger, 151 W.Va. 255 [ 151 S.E.2d 330 (1966)].””
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The doctrine of assumed or incurred risk is based upon the existence of a factual situation in which the act of the defendant alone creates the danger and causes the injury and the plaintiff voluntarily exposes himself to the danger with full knowledge and appreciation of its existence.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““In 7 Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, Section 350, the text contains this pertinent language: ‘An unavoidable or inevitable accident is such an occurrence or happening as, under all attendant circumstances and conditions, could not have been foreseen or anticipated in the exercise of ordinary care as the proximate cause of injury by any of the parties concerned. In other words, where there is no evidence that the operator of the motor vehicle was negligent in any way, or that he could have anticipated the resulting accident, the accident is deemed to have been an unavoidable or inevitable one for which no recovery may be had. However, the issue of unavoidable or inevitable accidents is not raised when there is no evidence tending to prove that the accident resulted from some cause other than the negligence of one of the parties.’ ””
    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.