Ball v. Joy Technologies, Incorporated’s Empirical Analysis
958 F.2d 36 · 1992
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2019 · most notably Metro-North Commuter Railroad v. Buckley (1997), Barnes
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 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 Payton v. Abbott Labs · Hughes v. Moore · 158 W. Va. 741 - Long v. City of Weirton · Jordan v. Bero · 481 So. 2d 517 - Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Cox
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Courts in ... Virginia have recognized that damages for emotional distress maybe recovered in three specific instances: (1) where the emotional disturbance results from an actual physical injury caused by the impact or occurrence of the tort; (2) where there is no initial impact or injury but physical injury thereafter results as the causal effect of the defendant’s wrong; and (3) where there is no impact or physical injury but emotional disturbance results from an intentional or wanton wrongful act caused by the defendant. Except for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, 2 damages for emotional distress may not be recovered under ... Virginia law absent a finding of physical injury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to be liable for a battery, an actor must act with the intention of causing a harmful or offensive contact with a person.” The Court is not prepared to extend the contours of this tort to hold the mere presence and resultant inhalation of chemicals in the air constitutes a "harmful or offensive contact” by the emitter. Second, Plaintiffs seek recovery for negligent restraint of liberty. Plaintiffs concede their "research of West Virginia law discloses no reported case where a person sued another for the negligent restrain [sic] of his liberty.” (emphasis in original). Pls.' resp. at 13. At oral argument, Plaintiffs clarified their position further, stating they have not located a single case anywhere alleging such a cause of action. Again, the recognition of, and contours to, this proposed claim substantially impact West Virginia public policy because of the sheer numbers the novel claim may generate. While the Court is aware of its responsibility under the Erie doctrine, it is also cognizant of its obligation "to rule upon state law as it presently exists and not to surmise or suggest its expansion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“such [public policy] considerations arc better left to the respective legislatures and highest courts of West Virginia....”
1 later decision 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.