26 West Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1902–2023 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Potesta v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.green2 sentences2023Waiver can only be used to continue coverage which would otherwise be lost by a technical non-compliance with a forfeiture clause.” Potesta, at 320, 504 S.E.2d at 147 (citation omitted). 2023Waiver can only be used to continue coverage which would otherwise be lost by a technical non-compliance with a forfeiture clause.” Potesta, at 320, 504 S.E.2d at 147 (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Giles v. Californiagreen2 sentences2021Statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused the declarant’s unavailability. — A statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused — or acquiesced in wrongfully causing — the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result. 18 Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 (2006). 19 People v. Reneaux, 50 Cal. App. 5th 852 , 865 (2020), reh’g denied (July 14, 2020), review denied (Aug. 26, 2020) (internal quotations omitted). 20 See Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 367 (2008) (describing Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) as codification of the common law 2021Statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused the declarant’s unavailability. — A statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused — or acquiesced in wrongfully causing — the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result. 18 Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 (2006). 19 People v. Reneaux, 50 Cal. App. 5th 852 , 865 (2020), reh’g denied (July 14, 2020), review denied (Aug. 26, 2020) (internal quotations omitted). 20 See Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 367 (2008) (describing Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) as codification of the common law | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mechlinggreen2 sentences2021Va. 366 , 633 S.E.2d 311 (2006)(“Under the doctrine of forfeiture, an accused who obtains the absence of a witness by wrongdoing forfeits the constitutional right to confrontation.”). 2 In so holding, the majority embarks on a steady path of erosion of the 1 In the United States Constitution the Sixth Amendment provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]” Likewise, the Confrontation Clause contained in the article III, section 14 of the West Virginia Constitution provides that in “[t]rials of crimes, and misdemeanors . . . th 2021Nevertheless, as previously mentioned, the Court held in syllabus point that “[u]nder the doctrine of forfeiture, an accused who obtains the absence of a witness by wrongdoing forfeits the constitutional right to confrontation.” Id. at 369 , 633 S.E.2d at 314 , Syl. | 1 | 2 |
Davis v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2021Statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused the declarant’s unavailability. — A statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused — or acquiesced in wrongfully causing — the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result. 18 Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 (2006). 19 People v. Reneaux, 50 Cal. App. 5th 852 , 865 (2020), reh’g denied (July 14, 2020), review denied (Aug. 26, 2020) (internal quotations omitted). 20 See Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 367 (2008) (describing Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) as codification of the common law 2021Statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused the declarant’s unavailability. — A statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused — or acquiesced in wrongfully causing — the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result. 18 Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 (2006). 19 People v. Reneaux, 50 Cal. App. 5th 852 , 865 (2020), reh’g denied (July 14, 2020), review denied (Aug. 26, 2020) (internal quotations omitted). 20 See Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 367 (2008) (describing Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) as codification of the common law | 1 | 1 |
Kevin Cody v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen1 sentence2021Statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused the declarant’s unavailability. — A statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused — or acquiesced in wrongfully causing — the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result. 18 Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 (2006). 19 People v. Reneaux, 50 Cal. App. 5th 852 , 865 (2020), reh’g denied (July 14, 2020), review denied (Aug. 26, 2020) (internal quotations omitted). 20 See Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 367 (2008) (describing Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) as codification of the common law | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James Dinkinsgreen1 sentence2021Statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused the declarant’s unavailability. — A statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused — or acquiesced in wrongfully causing — the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result. 18 Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 (2006). 19 People v. Reneaux, 50 Cal. App. 5th 852 , 865 (2020), reh’g denied (July 14, 2020), review denied (Aug. 26, 2020) (internal quotations omitted). 20 See Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 367 (2008) (describing Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) as codification of the common law | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Josephine Virginia Gray, A/K/A Josephine Stribbling, A/K/A Josephine Millsgreen2 sentences2021Statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused the declarant’s unavailability. — A statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused — or acquiesced in wrongfully causing — the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result. 18 Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 (2006). 19 People v. Reneaux, 50 Cal. App. 5th 852 , 865 (2020), reh’g denied (July 14, 2020), review denied (Aug. 26, 2020) (internal quotations omitted). 20 See Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 367 (2008) (describing Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) as codification of the common law 2021Statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused the declarant’s unavailability. — A statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused — or acquiesced in wrongfully causing — the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result. 18 Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 (2006). 19 People v. Reneaux, 50 Cal. App. 5th 852 , 865 (2020), reh’g denied (July 14, 2020), review denied (Aug. 26, 2020) (internal quotations omitted). 20 See Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 367 (2008) (describing Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) as codification of the common law | 1 | 1 |
Zanetos v. Sparksgreen1 sentence2016Va. 39, 46 , 152 S.E. 785, 788 (1930); see also Zanetos v. Sparks, 468 N.E.2d 938, 940 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (“The forfeiture clause for nonpayment of rent is not strictly construed, rather, it is viewed as merely security for the payment of rent.”). | 1 | 1 |
Beech Fork Coal Co. v. Pocahontas Corp.green1 sentence2016Va. 39, 46 , 152 S.E. 785, 788 (1930); see also Zanetos v. Sparks, 468 N.E.2d 938, 940 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (“The forfeiture clause for nonpayment of rent is not strictly construed, rather, it is viewed as merely security for the payment of rent.”). | 1 | 1 |
Gallery v. SECONDARY SCH. ACTIVITIES COM'Ngreen2 sentences2008Moreover, as we explained in Gallery v. Secondary Schools Activities Commission, 205 W.Va. 364 , 518 S.E.2d 368 (1999), the limited record developed on the forfeiture rule prevents us from identifying the scope of any collateral consequences that could result from failing to rule on this issue. 2008See id. at 368 , 518 S.E.2d at 372 (refusing to decide mooted issue of whether SSAC rules may constitutionally prohibit home-schooled athletes from participating in interscholastic sports given limited record development). 15 Another compelling reason for not applying Israel to this case arises from the fact that while issues centered on sports-team eligibility are ineluctably rendered moot by a student’s graduation, the forfeiture rule does not similarly evade judicial review. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2007The Kerby court rejected the forfeiture approach not only because the protection should not be unintentionally lost but also because the forfeiture rule is "an exercise in futility." People v. Williams, 21 Cal.4th 335 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 412 , 981 P.2d 42, 45 (1999). 2007The Kerby court rejected the forfeiture approach not only because the protection should not be unintentionally lost but also because the forfeiture rule is "an exercise in futility." People v. Williams, 21 Cal.4th 335 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 412 , 981 P.2d 42, 45 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
Christian Land Corp. v. C. & C. Co.green2 sentences1995Co., 188 W.Va. 26, 29 , 422 S.E.2d 503, 507 (1992) (per curiam) (holding that a “catchall, dragnet forfeiture clause for breach of any contractual covenant is inadequate” and will not terminate a lease). 10 Finally, we recognize that a forfeiture is not available when monetary damages can make whole the party to be benefited by the forfeiture. 1995Co., 188 W.Va. 26, 29 , 422 S.E.2d 503, 507 (1992) (per curiam) (holding that a “catchall, dragnet forfeiture clause for breach of any contractual covenant is inadequate” and will not terminate a lease). 10 Finally, we recognize that a forfeiture is not available when monetary damages can make whole the party to be benefited by the forfeiture. | 1 | 1 |
Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Shonk Land Co.green2 sentences1995See Easley Coal Co. v. Brush Creek Coal Co., supra. In the case sub judice, the termination clause of the lease was similar to the forfeiture provision. quoted in Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Shonk Land Co., 169 W.Va. at 316 , 288 S.E.2d at 143 , which we found to be “[a] catchall, dragnet forfeiture clause for breach of any contractual covenant [that] is inadequate.” 8 Because the lease’s forfei *751 ture provision does not give “clear and definite expression” to which broken covenant or condition may be used to declare a forfeiture, we find the lease’s forfeiture clause inadequate to declare a f 1995See Easley Coal Co. v. Brush Creek Coal Co., supra. In the case sub judice, the termination clause of the lease was similar to the forfeiture provision. quoted in Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Shonk Land Co., 169 W.Va. at 316 , 288 S.E.2d at 143 , which we found to be “[a] catchall, dragnet forfeiture clause for breach of any contractual covenant [that] is inadequate.” 8 Because the lease’s forfei *751 ture provision does not give “clear and definite expression” to which broken covenant or condition may be used to declare a forfeiture, we find the lease’s forfeiture clause inadequate to declare a f | 1 | 1 |
Cushman v. Outwatergreen2 sentences1986Forfeiture clauses are not favored by this Court, Cushman v. Outwater, 121 Vt. 426, 433 , 159 A.2d 89, 94 (1960), and thus prospective fines should likewise be disfavored." [5] In a somewhat analogous situation, we held in Gant v. Gant, ___ W.Va. ___, 329 S.E.2d 106 (1985), that a circuit court was without jurisdiction to impose a one-percent-per-day penalty in a contempt proceeding against a husband. 1986Forfeiture clauses are not favored by this Court, Cushman v. Outwater, 121 Vt. 426, 433 , 159 A.2d 89, 94 (1960), and thus prospective fines should likewise be disfavored." [5] In a somewhat analogous situation, we held in Gant v. Gant, ___ W.Va. ___, 329 S.E.2d 106 (1985), that a circuit court was without jurisdiction to impose a one-percent-per-day penalty in a contempt proceeding against a husband. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Peerless Carbon Black Co. v. Gillespie
green
2 sentences2005Also, "[a] covenant or condition, to suffice as the basis of a forfeiture clause in a contract, expressed in general terms, must be certain, definite and unequivocal in meaning." Syllabus Point 3, Id. 2005Also, “[a] covenant or condition, to suffice as the basis of a forfeiture clause in a contract, expressed in general terms, must be certain, definite and unequivocal in meaning.” Syllabus Point 3, Id. | 5 | 1922–2005 |
Mayo v. West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Commission
green
2 sentences2011Id. at 94 , 672 S.E.2d at 230 . 2011Id. at 94 , 672 S.E.2d at 230 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Israel Ex Rel. Israel v. West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Commission
green
2 sentences2008As support for its authority to address the forfeiture rule, the trial court looked to Israel v. Secondary Schools Activities Commission, 182 W.Va. 454 , 388 S.E.2d 480 (1989), a decision which addresses under what circumstances a court can rule upon technically moot issues. 2008As support for its authority to address the forfeiture rule, the trial court looked to Israel v. Secondary Schools Activities Commission, 182 W.Va. 454 , 388 S.E.2d 480 (1989), a decision which addresses under what circumstances a court can rule upon technically moot issues. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Gallery v. West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Commission
neutral
2 sentences2008Moreover, as we explained in Gallery v. Secondary Schools Activities Commission, 205 W.Va. 364 , 518 S.E.2d 368 (1999), the limited record developed on the forfeiture rule prevents us from identifying the scope of any collateral consequences that could result from failing to rule on this issue. 2008Moreover, as we explained in Gallery v. Secondary Schools Activities Commission, 205 W.Va. 364 , 518 S.E.2d 368 (1999), the limited record developed on the forfeiture rule prevents us from identifying the scope of any collateral consequences that could result from failing to rule on this issue. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Kerby
green
2 sentences2007The Kerby court reasoned that “[i]f we adopted the forfeiture rule in the instant case, Defendant would have a compelling ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he would not have been convicted but for his attorney’s failure to raise the statute of limitations defense.” 156 P.3d at 710 . 2007The Kerby court reasoned that "[i]f we adopted the forfeiture rule in the instant case, Defendant would have a compelling ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he would not have been convicted but for his attorney's failure to raise the statute of limitations defense." 156 P.3d at 710 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2006In both Crawford, 541 U.S. at 62 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 (citing Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 158-59 , 25 L.Ed. 244 (1870)) and in Davis , 547 U.S. at -(Slip Op. at 18-19), the U.S. Supreme Court identified the doctrine of forfeiture as a means by which an accused might lose the protection afforded by the Confrontation Clause. 2006In both Crawford, 541 U.S. at 62 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 (citing Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 158-59 , 25 L.Ed. 244 (1870)) and in Davis , 547 U.S. at -(Slip Op. at 18-19), the U.S. Supreme Court identified the doctrine of forfeiture as a means by which an accused might lose the protection afforded by the Confrontation Clause. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Reynolds v. United States
green
2 sentences2006In both Crawford, 541 U.S. at 62 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 (citing Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 158-59 , 25 L.Ed. 244 (1870)) and in Davis , 547 U.S. at -(Slip Op. at 18-19), the U.S. Supreme Court identified the doctrine of forfeiture as a means by which an accused might lose the protection afforded by the Confrontation Clause. 2006In both Crawford, 541 U.S. at 62 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 (citing Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 158-59 , 25 L.Ed. 244 (1870)) and in Davis , 547 U.S. at -(Slip Op. at 18-19), the U.S. Supreme Court identified the doctrine of forfeiture as a means by which an accused might lose the protection afforded by the Confrontation Clause. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Easley Coal Co. v. Brush Creek Coal Co.
green
2 sentences1992A covenant or condition merely implied, or an express one not clearly within the forfeiture clause, will not sustain a claim of forfeiture by reason of its breach. 91 W.Va. at 296-97 , 112 S.E. at 514 . 1992A covenant or condition merely implied, or an express one not clearly within the forfeiture clause, will not sustain a claim of forfeiture by reason of its breach. 91 W.Va. at 296-97 , 112 S.E. at 514 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Gant v. Gant
green
2 sentences1986Forfeiture clauses are not favored by this Court, Cushman v. Outwater, 121 Vt. 426, 433 , 159 A.2d 89, 94 (1960), and thus prospective fines should likewise be disfavored.” 5 In a somewhat analogous situation, we held in Gant v. Gant, 174 W.Va. 740 , 329 S.E.2d 106 (1985), that a circuit court was without jurisdiction to impose a one-percent-per-day penalty in a contempt proceeding against a husband. 1986Forfeiture clauses are not favored by this Court, Cushman v. Outwater, 121 Vt. 426, 433 , 159 A.2d 89, 94 (1960), and thus prospective fines should likewise be disfavored." [5] In a somewhat analogous situation, we held in Gant v. Gant, ___ W.Va. ___, 329 S.E.2d 106 (1985), that a circuit court was without jurisdiction to impose a one-percent-per-day penalty in a contempt proceeding against a husband. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Lowther Oil Co. v. Guffey
green
1 sentence1978Va. 88, 43 S.E. 101 (1902), an earlier case in which the single syllabus point provided: Where a grant of oil and gas, and oil and gas privileges, in consideration of one dollar, without *496 limitation as to time, contains a forfeiture clause in these words; “In case no well is completed within two years from this date, then this grant shall immediately become null and void as to both parties, provided that second party may prevent such forfeiture from year to year by paying to the first annually in advance eighteen and seventy-five one hundredths dollars at her residence until such well is c | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Craig v. Hukill
green
1 sentence1927Craig v. Hukill, 37 W. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Horse Creek Coal Land Co. v. Trees
neutral
1 sentence1923Va. 441 , we held that provisions of a contract effecting a forfeiture or exacting a penalty are strictly construed against the party for whose benefit they were incorporated in the instrument; also by the sixth point of the syllabus, that, “If a covenant or condition subsequent on which a forfeiture clause is predicated is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations and has been performed agreeably to one of them, no forfeiture is incurred or suffered.” In Horse Creek Coal Land Co. v. Trees et al., 75 W. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Brown v. Marion National Bank
green
1 sentence1911In Brown v. Bank, 169 U. S. 416 , Justice Harlan says: “No matter how many renewals may have been made, if the bank has charged a greater rate of interest then the law allows, it must, if the forfeiture clause of the statute be relied on, and the matter is thus brought to the attention of the court, lose the entire interest which the note carries or which has been agreed to be paid.” But as we have said we do not decide the question of pleading; for the benefit of the court and counsel on another trial, we refer to the authorities found on the subject. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Cochran v. Pew
neutral
1 sentence1907The conclusion and judgment of this Court was based upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: Galey v. Kellarman, 123 Pa. St. 491; Wills v. Gas Co., 130 Pa. St. 222; Leatherman v. Olliver, 151 Pa. St. 646; Phillips v. Vandergrift, 146 Pa. St. 357; McMillan v. Philadelphia Co., 159 Pa. St. 142; Cochran v. Pew, 159 Pa. 184 ; Conger v. Transportation Co., 165 Pa. St. 561. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
King v. Mullins
green
1 sentence1906An instance is King v. Mullins, 171 U. S. 404 , where it was held that the fact that legal proceedings are given under the process to enforce forfeiture of land for non-entry, for taxes avoided the imputation of unconstitutionality against the forfeiture clause of our constitution. | 1 | 1906–1906 |
Halstead v. Jessup
neutral
1 sentence1906The only case found which ■conflicts with this view is Halstead v. Jessup, 150 Ind. 85 , in which the rights of the parties were governed by a contract and in which the court held that the purchaser, in the absence of a forfeiture clause in the contract, might remove the timber sold after the expiration of the time fixed for its removal. | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Eclipse Oil Co. v. South Penn Oil Co. green | 1 | 1902–1902 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.