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 1889–1996 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Irwin
green
2 sentences1902While it is true that, in case of disobedience to an order of a court of equity, the proceeding for contempt is entered and carried on in the name of the State on the law side of the, court, after the return of the rule against the contemnor, (State v. Bridge Co., cited, and State v. Irwin, 30 W. 1889Railroad Co. v. Wheeling, 13 Gratt. 40 ; State v. Irwin, 30 W. | 2 | 1889–1902 |
Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc.
green
2 sentences1996Although we find no merit in Ms. Walters’ assignment of error concerning this instruction, we caution against interpreting this conclusion as an endorsement of this instruction because other objections could have been presented to the circuit court and to this Court, and these other concerns are not addressed herein. 4 In his objection to Defendant’s Instruction No. 5, counsel for Ms. Walters specifically objected to the first two sentences arguing that these two sentences were inconsistent with Fruth’s burden under comparative negligence to prove Ms. Walters’ negligence. 5 Plaintiffs Instruct 1996Although we find no merit in Ms. Walters’ assignment of error concerning this instruction, we caution against interpreting this conclusion as an endorsement of this instruction because other objections could have been presented to the circuit court and to this Court, and these other concerns are not addressed herein. 4 In his objection to Defendant’s Instruction No. 5, counsel for Ms. Walters specifically objected to the first two sentences arguing that these two sentences were inconsistent with Fruth’s burden under comparative negligence to prove Ms. Walters’ negligence. 5 Plaintiffs Instruct | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Taylor v. Board of Canvassers
neutral
1 sentence1946Va. 378 , 193 S. E. 575 . *460 Notwithstanding the allegations of the petition and the return to the rule with reference to the pay of the officers and members of the fire department of the Town of Marmet, and the possibility that the writ would be futile if awarded, we prefer to rest our decision on this question: Do the provisions of Chapter 60, Acts of the Legislature, Regular Session, 1933, apply to the fire department established by the Common Council of the Town of Marmet? | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Board of Education v. Holt
green
1 sentence1913Though it may not have been expressly stated in the return to the rule or in argument in the case of Board v. Holt, 51 W. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Baltimore & Ohio R. R. v. City of Wheeling
green
1 sentence1889Railroad Co. v. Wheeling, 13 Gratt. 40 ; State v. Irwin, 30 W. | 1 | 1889–1889 |
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.