Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 169 FSUPP 58 - Mayle v. Criss

Mayle v. Criss’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
2
states following
July 1992
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 1992

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

8019581960197019801990decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292

Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Panichella v. Pennsylvania Railroad · 133 W. Va. 474 - Bischoff v. Francesa · 95 W. Va. 164 - Watson v. Buckhannon River Coal Co. · 78 W. Va. 433 - Carper v. United Fuel Gas 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Liability of Joint Tort Feasors Not Affected by Release to or Accord and Satisfaction with Another. — A release to, or an accord and satisfaction with, one or more joint trespassers, or tort feasors, shall not inure to the benefit of another such trespasser, or tort-feasor, and shall be no bar to an action or suit against such other joint trespasser, or tort feasor, for the same cause of action to which the release or accord and satisfaction relates.” Michie's Code of 1966, § 55-7-12.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““In view of the manifest law of West Virginia that specific words limit the meaning of general words, and the statutory declaration that a release to one or more joint trespassers shall not inure to the benefit of another such trespasser, it is my judgment that ‘all other persons’ should not be construed to effect the release of [defendant], who was not a party to its execution and who paid none of the consideration.” 169 F.Supp. 60 .”
    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.