green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
8.6 score
“e review the circuit court's judgment de novo because it involves the interpretation of statutes which are questions of law.”
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State Ex Rel. Hechler v. Christian Action Network
e review the circuit court's judgment de novo because it involves the interpretation of statutes which are questions of law.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Pl 2001, Chapter 362
Id. at 919. [4] At oral argument before this Court, plaintiff's counsel stated that the policy of the Administrative Office of the Courts prohibits probation officers from making arrests.
discussed
Cited "see"
Griffith v. Conagra Brands, Inc.
See, Hartley Marine Corporation v. Mierke, Comm’r, 196 W.Va. 669, 677 , 474 S.E.2d 599, 607 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1108 , 117 S.Ct. 942 , 136 L.Ed.2d 832 (1997) (The determination of whether state legislation violates the Commerce Clause is reviewed de novo); Appalachian Power Company v. State Tax Dept., 195 W.Va. 573, 582 , 466 S.E.2d 424, 433 (1995) (indicating that, even where review is de novo, interpretation based on administrative expertise and discretion should be examined).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shannon v. Commissioner of Housing
(2×)
Insofar as neither the defendant nor the dissent points to any statute, regulation, or policy putting current recipients seeking renewal in the same place as a first time applicant; see, e.g., Barry v. Little, 669 A.2d 115, 122 (D.C. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1108 , 117 S. Ct. 942 , 136 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Intercargo Insurance Co., fka International Cargo & Surety Co. (Surety for Genauer)
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 96-650.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 18, 1997.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.