167 W. Va. 873 - Groves v. Compton’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably 182 W. Va. 597 - Board of Education v. Zando, Martin & Milstead, Inc. (1990), 179 W. Va. 691 - Reager Ex Rel. Reager v. Anderson (1988)
51 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 53 Ill. 2d 591 - Mulvey v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. · Degen v. Bayman · 152 W. Va. 490 - Spencer v. Steinbrecher · 147 W. Va. 771 - Thornsbury v. Thornsbury · 134 W. Va. 121 - Moore v. Skyline 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' “In the absence of a written stipulation by the parties, the better rule is to leave the question of the manner of handling the offset occasioned by the settlement by a joint tort-feasor, as well as the manner of informing the jury that such party has been dismissed from the lawsuit, to the sound discretion of the trial court.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“In Hardin v. New York Central R. Co., 145 W.Va. 676 , 116 S.E.2d 697 (1960), we outlined several different methods of handling the amount of a settlement paid by a joint tortfeasor, which payment may be used as a credit on the amount found to be owed by another joint tortfeasor. The jury can be informed of the amount of the settlement and instructed that they must deduct this amount from their award of damages. Another approach is to make no reference to the settlement; and, after the verdict is returned and judgment entered, the defendant may utilize the settlement figure “when an attempt to satisfy the judgment is made.” 145 W.Va. at 682 , 116 S.E.2d at 701 . Finally, by stipulation of the parties, the amount of the settlement can be used as a credit and deducted from the amount of the jury verdict. This method would presuppose that the jury is not informed of the settlement amount so that the possibility of a double deduction is avoided.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““In regard to informing the jury as to the dismissal of the party who has settled, we do not believe that any fixed rule can be set except to state that neither counsel should be permitted to take unfair advantage of the settlement and dismissal in presenting and arguing their case.””
2 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.