Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 159 W. Va. 779 - Eisnaugle v. Booth

159 W. Va. 779 - Eisnaugle v. Booth’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
July 1997
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 1997

3 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

90197619801990decided

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 135 W. Va. 739 - Brewer v. Appalachian Constructors, Inc. · Brown v. Reed · Thomas v. Snow · 150 W. Va. 648 - Bennett v. Buckner · 131 W. Va. 816 - Kelly v. Checker White Cab, Inc.

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

  1. “"It may be that the carelessness, indifference and negligence of any employer may be so wanton as to warrant a judicial determination that his ulterior intent was to inflict injury." [ 115 W.Va. at 253 , 175 S.E. at 72 ]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “When this language [W. Va. § 23-4-2] was first confronted by this Court, it seemed that it was viewed reasonably and was interpreted as to give an employee the benefit of a cause of action left open to him by the statute. Although the standards of pleading and proof were intended to be strict, there was no apparent effort to define “deliberate intention” in such terms as to impose what now amounts to a higher standard of pleading and proof than would be required in pleading and proving a charge of murder. Id. at 262.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"The usual meaning assigned to ‘wilful,’ ‘wanton’ or ‘reckless,’ according to taste as to the word used, is that the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a risk known to him or so obvious that he must be taken to have been aware of it, and so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow. It usually is accompanied by a conscious indifference to the consequences, amounting almost to willingness that they shall follow; and it has been said that this is indispensable." W. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts 185 (4th ed. 1971). (Emphasis added)”
    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.