213 W. Va. 69 - Elliott v. Schoolcraft’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
14 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 192 W. Va. 189 - Painter v. Peavy · 194 W. Va. 52 - Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc. · 196 W. Va. 692 - Powderidge Unit Owners Ass'n v. Highland Properties, Ltd. · 208 W. Va. 486 - Aikens v. Debow · 167 W. Va. 866 - Parsley v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) articulate some plausible basis for the party’s belief that specified “discoverable” material facts likely exist which have not yet become accessible to the party; (2) demonstrate some realistic prospect that the material facts can be obtained within a reasonable additional time period; (3) demonstrate that the material facts will, if obtained, suffice to engender an issue both genuine and material; and (4) demonstrate good cause for failure to have conducted the discovery earlier.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A. No Action for Negligence Can Be Maintained in the Absence of a Legal Duty and the Question of the Existence of a Legal Duty is a Question of Law Appropriately Resolved in a Motion for Summary Judgment 1. No action for negligence can be maintained in the absence of a legal duty. This Court has stated: “ ‘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.’ Syl. pt. 1, Parsley v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 167 W.Va. 866 , 280 S.E.2d 703 (1981).” Syl. pt. 4, Jack v. Fritts, 193 W.Va. 494 , 457 S.E.2d 431 (1995). Syl. pt. 3, Aikens v. Debow, 208 W.Va. 486 , 541 S.E.2d 576 (2000). See also Hinkle v. Martin, 163 W.Va. 482, 486 , 256 S.E.2d 768, 770 (1979) (“It is axiomatic that 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.”). “Where the undisputed material facts do not establish the existence of a duty, summaiy judgment is appropriate.” Kazanoff v. United States, 753 F.Supp. 1056, 1059 (E.D.N.Y.1990). See also Gylten v. Swalboski, 246 F.3d 1139, 1144-45 (8th Cir.2001) (“[W]e conclude that the grant of summary judgment was proper. Absent a duty, there can be no breach, and thus, no ba”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(b) Scheduling and Planning. Except in categories of actions exempted by the Supreme Court of Appeals, the judge shall, after consulting with the attorneys for the parties and any unrepresented parties, by a scheduling conference, telephone, mail or other suitable means, enter a scheduling order that limits the time: (1) To join other parties and to amend the pleadings; (2) To file and hear motions; and (3) To complete discovery. The scheduling order also may include: (4) The date or dates for conferences before trial, a final pretrial conference, and trial; and (5) Any other matters appropriate in the circumstances of the case. A schedule shall not be modified except by leave of the judge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.