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 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1909–2001 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pelo v. Franklin College of Indianagreen2 sentences2001This is particularly true because "at least some injured parties `would be reluctant to settle with the servant or agent, and thereby extinguish his [or her] cause of action against the master or principal, unless he [or she] could settle with the servant or agent for' for full satisfaction (in which case the effect of the common law rule would be irrelevant)." Saranillio v. Silva, 78 Hawai'i at 13 , 889 P.2d at 697 (quoting Van Cleave, 101 Nev. at 530 , 706 P.2d at 849 ) (alterations in Saranillio); see also Pelo v. Franklin College of Indiana, 715 N.E.2d at 366 (stating that under common-law 2001This is particularly true because “at least some injured parties ‘would be reluctant to settle with the servant or agent, and thereby extinguish his [or her] cause of action against the master or principal, unless he [or she] could settle with the servant or agent for’ for full satisfaction (in which case the effect of the common law rule would be irrelevant).” Saranillio v. Silva, 78 Hawai’i at 13, 889 P.2d at 697 (quoting Van Cleave, 101 Nev. at 630 , 706 P.2d at 849 ) (alterations in Saranillio); see also Pelo v. Franklin College of Indiana, 715 N.E.2d at 366 (stating that under common-law | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Van Cleave v. Gamboni Construction Co.
green
2 sentences2001This is particularly true because “at least some injured parties ‘would be reluctant to settle with the servant or agent, and thereby extinguish his [or her] cause of action against the master or principal, unless he [or she] could settle with the servant or agent for’ for full satisfaction (in which case the effect of the common law rule would be irrelevant).” Saranillio v. Silva, 78 Hawai’i at 13, 889 P.2d at 697 (quoting Van Cleave, 101 Nev. at 630 , 706 P.2d at 849 ) (alterations in Saranillio); see also Pelo v. Franklin College of Indiana, 715 N.E.2d at 366 (stating that under common-law 2001This is particularly true because “at least some injured parties ‘would be reluctant to settle with the servant or agent, and thereby extinguish his [or her] cause of action against the master or principal, unless he [or she] could settle with the servant or agent for’ for full satisfaction (in which case the effect of the common law rule would be irrelevant).” Saranillio v. Silva, 78 Hawai’i at 13, 889 P.2d at 697 (quoting Van Cleave, 101 Nev. at 630 , 706 P.2d at 849 ) (alterations in Saranillio); see also Pelo v. Franklin College of Indiana, 715 N.E.2d at 366 (stating that under common-law | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Saranillio v. Silva
green
2 sentences2001This is particularly true because "at least some injured parties `would be reluctant to settle with the servant or agent, and thereby extinguish his [or her] cause of action against the master or principal, unless he [or she] could settle with the servant or agent for' for full satisfaction (in which case the effect of the common law rule would be irrelevant)." Saranillio v. Silva, 78 Hawai'i at 13 , 889 P.2d at 697 (quoting Van Cleave, 101 Nev. at 530 , 706 P.2d at 849 ) (alterations in Saranillio); see also Pelo v. Franklin College of Indiana, 715 N.E.2d at 366 (stating that under common-law 2001This is particularly true because “at least some injured parties ‘would be reluctant to settle with the servant or agent, and thereby extinguish his [or her] cause of action against the master or principal, unless he [or she] could settle with the servant or agent for’ for full satisfaction (in which case the effect of the common law rule would be irrelevant).” Saranillio v. Silva, 78 Hawai’i at 13, 889 P.2d at 697 (quoting Van Cleave, 101 Nev. at 630 , 706 P.2d at 849 ) (alterations in Saranillio); see also Pelo v. Franklin College of Indiana, 715 N.E.2d at 366 (stating that under common-law | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Cleveland v. Carcione
green
2 sentences1978For the proper rule we look to our own constitutional provision on just compensation and to the leading case of City of Cleveland v. Carcione, 118 Ohio App. 525 , 190 N.E.2d 52 (1963). 1978For the proper rule we look to our own constitutional provision on just compensation and to the leading case of City of Cleveland v. Carcione, 118 Ohio App. 525 , 190 N.E.2d 52 (1963). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Owen v. Appalachian Power Co.
green
1 sentence1953Va. 596 , 89 S. E. 262 , for the converse of the principle decided in the Hayman case. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Lindsay v. Cecchi
green
1 sentence1920Lindsay v. Cecchi, (Del.) 80 Atl. 523 ; 35 L. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Decker v. Gammon
green
1 sentence1909The rule is laid down by the Supreme Court of Maine, in the case of Decker v. Gammon, 44 Me. 322 , as follows: “If damage be done by any domestic animal kept for use or convenience, the owner is not liable to an action on the ground of negligence, without proof that he knew that the animal was accustomed to do mischief before, if such animal is rightfully in- the place where it does the mischief.” In the next point of the syllabus the converse of the rule is stated: “If domestic animals are wrongfully in the place where they do the mischief, the owner is liable for it, though he had no notice | 1 | 1909–1909 |
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.