202 W. Va. 369 - Travis v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce (1999), 209 W. Va. 318 - Sheetz, Inc. v. Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, PLLC (2001)
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 39 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 192 W. Va. 189 - Painter v. Peavy · 2 Cal. 3d 493 - Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. · Agis v. Howard Johnson Co. · 194 W. Va. 52 - Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc. · Womack v. Eldridge
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order for a plaintiff to prevail on a claim for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, four elements must be established. It must be shown: (1) that the defendant’s conduct was atrocious, intolerable, and so extreme and outrageous as to exceed the bounds of decency; (2) that the defendant acted with the intent to inflict emotional distress, or acted recklessly when it was certain or substantially certain emotional distress would result from his conduct; (3) that the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer emotional distress; and, (4) that the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.”
34 later decisions quote this exact passage“In evaluating a defendant’s conduct in an intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress claim, the role of the trial court is to first determine whether the defendant’s conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to constitute the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress. Whether conduct may reasonably be considered outrageous is a legal question, and whether conduct is in fact outrageous is a question for jury determination.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[i]n claims for intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress that arise from the termination of employment, the two-year statute of limitation for personal inju- ríes begins to run on the date of the last extreme and outrageous conduct, or threat of extreme and outrageous conduct, which precipitated the termination of employment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.