182 W. Va. 802 - Keyes v. Keyes’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably 194 W. Va. 643 - Tanner v. Rite Aid of West Virginia, Inc. (1995), 186 W. Va. 597 - Courtney v. Courtney (1991)
2 federal appellate · 18 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 Womack v. Eldridge · 169 W. Va. 673 - Harless v. First National Bank in Fairmont · 148 W. Va. 198 - Commercial Credit Corp. v. Citizens National Bank of Point Pleasant
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It has not been enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has been characterized by “malice,” or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Especially where no physical injury accompanies the wrong, the tort of outrage is a slippery beast, which can easily get out of hand without firm judicial oversight.”
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.