175 W. Va. 364 - Davis v. Robertson’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently January 2001 · most notably 192 W. Va. 155 - State Ex Rel. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Madden (1994), 179 W. Va. 762 - Lee v. Saliga (1988)
3 federal appellate · 34 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 Shaffer v. Heitner · 163 W. Va. 332 - Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co. · Oates v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America · 223 So. 2d 713 - Shingleton v. Bussey · 167 W. Va. 597 - Jenkins v. J. C. Penney Casualty Ins.
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“avoid[ing] the unnecessary mention of insurance coverage at trial because of its possibly prejudicial effect on the jury's verdict.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““W.Va.Code, 33-6-31, our uninsured motorist statute, does not authorize a direct action against the insurance company providing uninsured motorist coverage until a judgment has been obtained against the uninsured motorist.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Code § 38.1-381(d) provides that such notice is required "in order for the insured to recover under the endorsement” in the insurance policy. This is not an action arising ex contractu to recover against the insurance company on its endorsement. The insurance company is not a named party defendant and judgment cannot be entered against it in this action. This is an action ex delicto, since the cause of action arises out of a tort, and the only issues presented are the establishment of legal liability on the unknown uninsured motorist, John Doe, and the fixing of damages, if any. This conclusion is strengthened by the language used in § 38.1-381(g), which reads: “ * * * nor may anything be required of the insured [plaintiff] except the establishment of legal liability * * Notice of the accident to the Division of Motor Vehicles is not required in this action against John Doe.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.