191 W. Va. 355 - MacKey v. Irisari’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably 209 W. Va. 318 - Sheetz, Inc. v. Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, PLLC (2001), 205 W. Va. 630 - Lacy v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (1999)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 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 152 W. Va. 91 - Sanders v. Roselawn Memorial Gardens, Inc. · 182 W. Va. 597 - Board of Education v. Zando, Martin & Milstead, Inc. · 169 W. Va. 440 - Sydenstricker v. Unipunch Products, Inc. · 169 W. Va. 698 - Sitzes v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. · 161 W. Va. 230 - Haynes v. City of Nitro
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[g]reat latitude is allowed counsel in argument of cases, but counsel must keep within the evidence, not make statements calculated to inflame, prejudice or mislead the jury, nor permit or encourage witnesses to make remarks which would have a tendency to inflame, prejudice or mislead the jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Disclosure to the jury of the general nature of a "Mary Carter” settlement agreement is not required in each case; such disclosure lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Where the "Mary Carter" agreement is not reached until after all or most of the evidence has been presented, and the settling defendant during closing argument and examination does not indicate to the juiy a realignment of loyalties so as to prejudice the nonsettling defendants), it is within the sound discretion of the trial court to refuse to disclose the general nature of the “Mary Carter” agreement to the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The law favors and encourages the resolution of controversies by contracts of compromise and settlement rather than by litigation; and it is the policy of the law to uphold and enforce such contracts if they are fairly made and are not in contravention of some law or public policy.”
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.