197 W. Va. 651 - Harrison v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably 199 W. Va. 706 - Gaither v. City Hospital, Inc. (1997), 201 W. Va. 509 - Tolliver v. Kroger Co. (1997)
2 district · 34 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 Conley v. Gibson · Hishon v. King & Spalding · 194 W. Va. 770 - State Ex Rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc. · 196 W. Va. 692 - Powderidge Unit Owners Ass'n v. Highland Properties, Ltd. · 598 So. 2d 71 - City of Holmes Beach v. Grace
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The claim for spoliation of evidence is a novel issue in this State. Although we have decided two cases involving such a claim, we have yet to recognize spoliation of evidence as a valid cause of action. See State ex rel. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Madden, 192 W.Va. 155 , 451 S.E.2d 721 (1994) (noting that plaintiff alleged spoliation of evidence in his amended complaint); Taylor v. Ford Motor Co., 185 W.Va. 518 , 408 S.E.2d 270 (1991) (refusing to determine validity of cause of action for spoliation of evidence). We again decline to resolve the viability of such a cause of action because we find the circuit court properly dismissed the plaintiff's spoliation of evidence claim as untimely filed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Nevertheless, despite the allowance in Rule 8(a) that the plaintiffs statement of the claim be “short and plain,” a plaintiff may not “fumble around searching for a meritorious claim within the elastic boundaries of a barebones complaint [,]” see Chaveriat v. Williams Pipe Line Co., 11 F.3d 1420, 1430 (7th Cir.1993), or where the claim is not authorized by the laws of West Virginia. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) enables a circuit court to weed out unfounded suits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Although our standard of review for summary judgment remains de novo, a circuit court’s order granting summary judgment must set out factual findings sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. Findings of fact, by necessity, include those facts which the circuit court finds relevant, determinative of the issues and undisputed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hively v. Merrifield
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.