192 W. Va. 392 - Reed v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably 206 W. Va. 333 - Shaffer v. Acme Limestone Co., Inc. (1999), Carr v. Peerless Insurance (1998)
20 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 167 W. Va. 597 - Jenkins v. J. C. Penney Casualty Ins. · 160 W. Va. 694 - O'NEIL v. City of Parkersburg · 183 W. Va. 77 - Anderson v. Moulder · 179 W. Va. 585 - Sewell v. Gregory · 145 W. Va. 408 - Spurlin v. Nardo
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.
“A prima facie case of actionable negligence is that state of facts which will support a jury finding that the defendant was guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries, that is, it is a case that has proceeded upon sufficient proof to the stage where it must be submitted to a jury and not decided against the plaintiff as a matter of law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) [T]he plaintiff must be a member of the class for whose benefit the statute was enacted; (2) consideration must be given to legislative intent, express or implied, to determine whether a private cause of action was intended; (3) an analysis must be made of whether a private cause of action is consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme; and (4) such private cause of action must not intrude into an area delegated exclusively to the federal government.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The standard of conduct required of a reasonable person may be prescribed by legislative enactment. When a statute provides that under certain circumstances particular acts shall or shall not be done, it may be interpreted as fixing a standard for all members of the community, from which it is negligence to deviate.”
2 later decisions 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.