Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 197 Va. 608 - Wright v. Everett

Wright v. Everett’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

135
cited by 135 later decisions
3
states following
August 2019
most recently cited

33 federal appellate · 2 district · 59 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Kamlar Corp. v. Haley (1983), Northwestern National Casualty Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin v. Edward A. McNulty and Walter Scott Smith (1962)

33 federal appellate · 2 district · 59 state decisions

3601956196019701980199020002010decided

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 Eshelman v. Rawalt · Wood v. American National Bank · Hogg v. Plant · Spence v. Norfolk & Western Railroad · Borland v. Barrett

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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “are limited to the pecuniary loss sustained.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “not so much as compensation for the plaintiff's loss as to warn others, and to punish the wrongdoer.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “However, the evidence for plaintiffs is insufficient to prove any element of bad motive, or fraud, or that defendant acted in a manner so wanton or oppressive, or with such recklessness as implied a spirit of mischief or criminal indifference to the rights of plaintiffs. Therefore, defendant is liable to plaintiffs for compensatory damages only;”
    2 later decisions 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.