Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 180 W. Va. 307 - Dawson v. Woodson

180 W. Va. 307 - Dawson v. Woodson’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
March 2009
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2009

18 state decisions

140198819902000decided

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 148 W. Va. 160 - Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New York · 164 W. Va. 241 - Masinter v. Webco Co. · 148 W. Va. 380 - Hatten v. Mason Realty Company · 112 Ohio St. 485 - Drew v. Gross · Byram v. Main

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. “A motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘Questions of negligence, due care, proximate cause and concurrent negligence present issues of fact for jury determination when the evidence pertaining to such issues is conflicting or where the facts, even though undisputed, are such that reasonable men may draw different conclusions from them.’ Syl. pt. 5, Hatten v. Mason Realty Co., 148 W.Va. 380 , 135 S.E.2d 236 (1964).” Syllabus Point 3, Dawson v. Woodson, 180 W.Va. 307 , 376 S.E.2d 321 (1988).”
    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.