177 W. Va. 494 - Michael v. Henry’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 2006
21 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 164 W. Va. 112 - Hinkle v. Black · White v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad · Bailey v. Meister Brau, Inc. · Mantolete v. Bolger · Railroad Salvage of Conn., Inc. v. Japan Freight Consolidators (U.S.A.) 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Discovery Scope and its limits. — Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows: (4) Trial preparation: experts. — Discovery of facts known and opinions held by experts, otherwise discoverable under the provisions of subdivision (b)(1) of this rule and acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial, may be obtained only as follows: (B) A party may discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial, only as provided in Rule 35(b) or upon a showing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"See Jackson v. Kroblin Refrigerator Express, Inc., 49 F.R.D. 134, 135 (N.D.W.Va.1970) and cases there cited; Annot., 19 A.L.R.3d 1114 (1968). The Advisory Committee Note dealing with Rule 26(b)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states in pertinent part: ‘Discovery is limited to trial witnesses, and may be obtained only at a time when the parties known who their expert witnesses will be.’ 48 F.R.D. at 504. Rule 26(b)(4)(A) ‘is framed in terms of expectation, and therefore when an interrogatory is served before the party has determined who will be retained as an expert, the answer can state that fact.’ 4 Moore's Federal Practice, ¶26.66[3] at 26-[415] (1984).’’ 177 W.Va. at 498, 354 S.E.2d at 594 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Rule 26(b)(4)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure which: “[Gjovems the facts and opinions of experts who are not to be used at trial, but are instead retained only in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial. These experts are subject to a more restrictive discovery standard.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Luster v. Brown
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.