201 W. Va. 615 - Hamric v. Doe’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably 213 W. Va. 80 - Findley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (2003), 210 W. Va. 490 - Walker v. Doe (2002)
28 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 175 W. Va. 337 - Shamblin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance · 159 W. Va. 508 - Prete v. Merchants Property Ins. Co. of Ind. · 181 W. Va. 460 - Deel v. Sweeney · Girgis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · 177 W. Va. 84 - Perkins v. Doe
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.
“ab solute enforcement of the physical contact requirement is contrary to public policy”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“A close and substantial physical nexus exists between an unidentified hit-and-run vehicle and the insured for uninsured motorist insurance coverage under W. Va. Code § 33-6-31 (e)(iii) when an insured can establish by independent third-party evidence to the satisfaction of the trial judge and the jury, that but for the immediate evasive action of the insured, direct physical contact would have occurred between the unknown vehicle and the victim.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(e) If the owner or operator of any motor vehicle which causes bodily injury or property damage to the insured be unknown, the insured, or someone in his or her behalf, in order for the insured to recover under the uninsured motorist endorsement or provision, shall: (iii) Upon trial establish that the motor vehicle, which caused the bodily injury or property damage, whose operator is unknown, was a "hit and run” motor vehicle, meaning a motor vehicle which causes damage to the property of the insured arising out of physical contact of such motor vehicle therewith, or which causes bodily injury to the insured arising out of physical contact of such motor vehicle with the insured or with a motor vehicle which the insured was occupying at the time of the accident. If the owner or operator of any motor vehicle causing bodily injury or property damage be unknown, an action may be instituted against the unknown defendant as "John Doe”, in the county in which the accident took place or in any other county in which such action would be proper under the provisions of article one [§ 56-1-1 et seq.], chapter fifty-six of this code; service of process may be made by delivery of a copy of the complaint and summons or other pleadings to the clerk of the court in which the action is brought, and service upon the insurance company issuing the policy shall be made as prescribed by law as though such insurance company were a party defendant. The insurance company shall have the right to file p”
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.