200 W. Va. 421 - Williamson v. Greene’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Thibodeau v. Design Group One Architects, LLC (2002), 202 W. Va. 308 - Potesta v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (1998)
62 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Adair v. United States · Searle v. Simon · 195 W. Va. 573 - Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Department · 73 Ohio St. 3d 65 - Collins v. Rizkana · 162 W. Va. 116 - Harless v. First National Bank in Fairmont
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[i]t is not for [courts] arbitrarily to read into [a statute] that which it does not say. Just as courts are not to eliminate through judicial interpretation words that were purposely included, we are obliged not to add to statutes something the Legislature purposely omitted." Banker v. Banker, 196 W.Va. 535, 546-47 , 474 S.E.2d 465, 476-77 (1996) ( citing Bullman v. D & R Lumber Company, 195 W.Va. 129 , 464 S.E.2d 771 (1995)).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“[e]ven though a discharged at-will employee has no statutory claim for retaliatory discharge under W. Va.Code, 5-11-9(7)(C) [1992] of the West Virginia Human Rights Act because his or her former employer was not employing twelve or more persons within the state at the time the acts giving rise to the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice were committed, as required by W. Va.Code, 5-11-3(d) [1994], the discharged employee may nevertheless maintain a common law claim for retaliatory discharge against the employer based on alleged sex discrimination or sexual harassment because sex discrimination and sexual harassment in employment contravene the public policy of this State articulated in the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W. Va.Code, 5-11-1, et seq.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n the absence of legislative intent to preempt common-law remedies, we can perceive no basis upon which to find that R.C. 4112.01(A)(2) [exempting employers with fewer than four employees from the antidiscrimination statute] forms part of the public policy reflected in R.C. 4112.02(A) [making discrimination in employment an unlawful practice]. Therefore, we cannot find it to be Ohio's public policy that an employer with three employees may condition their employment upon the performance of sexual favors while an employer with four employees may not.”
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.