As long as `switch` fall through statements aren't being used, then I don't really care. The case against fall-through cases is presented by Douglas Crockford:

> ## switch Fall Through
> The `switch` statement was modeled after the FORTRAN IV computed `go to` statement. Each case falls through into the next case unless you explicitly disrupt the flow.
> 
> Someone wrote to me once suggesting that JSLint should give a warning when a case falls through into another case. He pointed out that this is a very common source of errors, and it is a difficult error to see in the code. I answered that that was all true, but that the benefit of compactness obtained by falling through more than compensated for the chance of error.
> 
> The next day, he reported that there was an error in JSLint. It was misidentifying an error. I investigated, and it turned out that I had a case that was falling through. In that moment, I achieved enlightenment. I no longer use intentional fall throughs. That discipline makes it much easier to find the unintentional fall throughs.
> 
> The worst features of a language aren't the features that are obviously dangerous or useless. Those are easily avoided. The worst features are the attractive nuisances, the features that are both useful and dangerous.

http://oreilly.com/javascript/excerpts/javascript-good-parts/bad-parts.html