192 W. Va. 398 - Clark v. Milam’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably 199 W. Va. 119 - Cordial v. Ernst & Young (1996), Resolution Trust Corp. v. Scaletty (1995)
4 federal appellate · 3 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Alvado v. General Motors Corp. · Hecht v. Resolution Trust Corp. · Hunt v. American Bank & Trust Co. of Baton Rouge · 188 W. Va. 241 - Cart v. Marcum · 184 W. Va. 212 - Sattler v. Bailey
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We agree with the Receiver that a corporate plaintiff cannot ‘discover’ injuries to the corporation caused by those who control the corporation. Thus, and in accordance with our overwhelming precedent, the discovery rule requires that the limitation periods on tort claims by a corporate plaintiff or its successor (here the Receiver) be tolled when the corporation has been prevented from ‘knowing’ those claims existed. Generally, a corporation ‘knows,’ or ‘discovers,’ what its officers and directors know. But when officers and directors act against the interests of the corporation, their knowledge, like that of any agent acting adversely to his principal, is not imputed to the corporation. [Citations omitted.]””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In West Virginia, the doctrine of adverse domination tolls statutes of limitation for tort claims against officers and directors who acted adversely to the interests of the company and against lawyers and accountants, owing fiduciary duties to the company, who took action contributing to the adverse domination of the company.”
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.