Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Virgin Islands opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virgin Islands courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pickering v. Davidgreen1 sentence2014See Pickering, 22 V.I. at 110 (quoting St. | 1 | 1 |
In re Hartlagegreen1 sentence2014In In re Hartlage, 54 V.I. 446, 454 (V.I. 2010), the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands affirmed the holding of the Superior Court that a claimant’s motion to file a late claim cannot be granted where the claimant relies solely on “conclusory statements] based on either hearsay or conjecture.” But this case is entirely distinct from Hartlage because Plaintiff makes specific allegations that are strongly supported by the police report. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virgin Islands. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mercer v. Government of the Virgin Islands
green
2 sentences1983Mercer v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 18 V.I. 171 (Terr. 1982In Mercer v. Government, 18 V.I. 171 (Terr. | 2 | 1982–1983 |
Delgado v. Government of the Virgin Islands
green
2 sentences2014However, the apparent confusion has no bearing on the instant case because the Delgado Court, affirming the Superior Court’s determination that a claimant failed to assert a sufficiently reasonable excuse for failing to timely file solely on the basis that she could not leave the apartment for one week due to her injuries, simply defined the “sort of ‘serious’ injuries ... [that] would ... prevent [a claimant]... from pursuing [a]... claim at any time during the ninety days.” Id. 2014Specifically, the Delgado Court held that “a serious injury that interferes with a claimant’s ability to communicate with an attorney or otherwise take action on her claim constitutes a ‘reasonable excuse’ under section 3409(c), and therefore it is a proper exercise of a court’s discretion to toll the ninety-day limitation to the extent of the interference.” Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Harley ex rel. Harley v. Government of the Virgin Islands
green
1 sentence1992Harley v. Government, 18 V.I. 228 (T.C. 1982). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Matteo v. State
neutral
2 sentences1988In Matteo v. State, 203 Misc. 523 , 116 N.Y.S.2d 108 (1952) the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a late claim against the state because plaintiff’s error in computing the ninety-day period for filing a notice of intention was excusable neglect. 1988In Matteo v. State, 203 Misc. 523 , 116 N.Y.S.2d 108 (1952) the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a late claim against the state because plaintiff’s error in computing the ninety-day period for filing a notice of intention was excusable neglect. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Killeen v. State
neutral
2 sentences1988The other New York case cited by plaintiff in support of his motion to file a late claim is Killeen v. State, 12 Misc. 2d 89 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 1000 (1958). 1988The other New York case cited by plaintiff in support of his motion to file a late claim is Killeen v. State, 12 Misc. 2d 89 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 1000 (1958). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.