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 1 courts 2002–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Adamsgreen1 sentence2014See Armstrong World Indus. v. Adams, 961 F.2d 405 , 411 n.13 (3d Cir. 1992) (“The ripeness doctrine is often confused with the standing doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
National Organization for Marriage, Inc. v. Walshgreen1 sentence2014Whereas ripeness is concerned with when an action may be brought, standing focuses on who may bring a ripe action.”) (emphasis in original); see also Nat’l Org. for Marriage, Inc. v. Walsh, 714 F.3d 682, 687 (2d Cir. 2013) (“A claim is not ripe if it depends upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.”). | 1 | 1 |
Virgin Islands Government Hospitals & Health Facilities Corp. v. Government of the Virgin Islands, Department of Healthgreen1 sentence2009Gov’t Hosp. and Health Facilities Corp. v. Gov’t, 50 V.I. 276, 280 (V.I. 2008), this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the People’s March 3, 2009 appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc.green2 sentences2008The ripeness doctrine, which stems “both from Article III limitations on judicial power and from prudential reasons for refusing to exercise jurisdiction,” Reno v. Catholic Social Servs, Inc., 509 U.S. 43, 57, n. 18 , 113 S. Ct. 2485 , 125 L. 2008The ripeness doctrine, which stems “both from Article III limitations on judicial power and from prudential reasons for refusing to exercise jurisdiction,” Reno v. Catholic Social Servs, Inc., 509 U.S. 43, 57, n. 18 , 113 S. Ct. 2485 , 125 L. | 1 | 1 |
Ryan v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2008Sept. 16,2008) (holding that the ripeness doctrine applies to motions for attorney’s fees); see also Ryan v. United States, 71 Fed. | 1 | 1 |
General Offshore Corp. v. Farrellygreen1 sentence2002General Offshore Corp. v. Farrelly,. 743 F. Supp. 1177, 1190 (D.V.I. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virgin Islands. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.