Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 208 W. Va. 486 - Aikens v. Debow

208 W. Va. 486 - Aikens v. Debow’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

103
cited by 103 later decisions
6
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

4 district · 74 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Springfield Hydroelectric Co. v. Copp (2001), 216 W. Va. 175 - Strahin v. Cleavenger (2004)

4 district · 74 state decisions

560200120102020decided

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 Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · International Ass'n of Machinists v. Duckworth · Ultramares Corp. v. Touche · Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint

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

  1. “[t]he determination of whether a defendant in a particular case owes a duty to the plaintiff is not a factual question for the jury; rather the determination of whether a plaintiff is owed a duty of care by a defendant must be rendered by the court as a matter of law.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In order to establish a prima facie case of negligence in West Virginia, it must be shown that the defendant has been guilty of some act or omission in violation of a duty owed to the plaintiff. No action for negligence will lie without a duty broken.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he ultimate test of the existence of a duty to use care is found in the foreseeability that harm may result if it is not exercised. The test is, would the ordinary man in the defendant's position, knowing what he knew or should have known, anticipate that harm of the general nature of that suffered was likely to result?”
    5 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.