23 West Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Crabtreegreen2 sentences2024The invited error doctrine “is a branch of the doctrine of waiver which prevents a party from inducing an inappropriate or erroneous response and then later seeking to profit from that error.” State v. Crabtree, 198 W. 2023Va. 620, 627 , 482 S.E.2d 605, 612 (1996) (“‘Invited error’ is a cardinal rule of appellate review applied to a wide range of conduct. | 10 | 18 |
State v. Reddengreen2 sentences2004See State v. Redden, 199 W.Va. 660 , 487 S.E.2d 318 (1997) (using plain error to address an invited error issue that involved a fundamental right secured by the state and federal constitutions); State v. Miller, 184 W.Va. 367 , 400 S.E.2d 611 (1990) (same). 2004See State v. Redden, 199 W.Va. 660 , 487 S.E.2d 318 (1997) (using plain error to address an invited error issue that involved a fundamental right secured by the state and federal constitutions); State v. Miller, 184 W.Va. 367 , 400 S.E.2d 611 (1990) (same). | 1 | 3 |
Longwell v. Hodgegreen2 sentences2014Although the State has briefed the additional incidents of domestic violence under the invited error doctrine, 9 we believe the curative admissibility rule is the more appropriate doctrine for evaluating this issue. 10 See Longwell v. Hodge, 171 W.Va. 45, 47 , 297 S.E.2d 820, 822 (1982) (“We agree with the Circuit Court, and affirm its decision, although for different reasons than those expressed by the lower court.”). “[T]he curative admissibility rule comes into play when irrelevant evidence is introduced without objection and the opponent seeks to introduce rebuttal evidence that is also ir 2014Although the State has briefed the additional incidents of domestic violence under the invited error doctrine, 9 we believe the curative admissibility rule is the more appropriate doctrine for evaluating this issue. 10 See Longwell v. Hodge, 171 W.Va. 45, 47 , 297 S.E.2d 820, 822 (1982) (“We agree with the Circuit Court, and affirm its decision, although for different reasons than those expressed by the lower court.”). “[T]he curative admissibility rule comes into play when irrelevant evidence is introduced without objection and the opponent seeks to introduce rebuttal evidence that is also ir | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Lindlergreen1 sentence2013There is an exception to the invited error doctrine "when application of the rule would result in a manifest injustice[,]” Crabtree, 198 W.Va. at 628 , 482 S.E.2d at 613 , and where application of the exception to the rule " ‘is necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process or to prevent a miscarriage of justice.’ ” Id. (citing Wilson v. Lindler, 995 F.2d 1256, 1262 (4th Cir.1993)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Knucklesgreen2 sentences2000It was noted in State v. Knuckles, 196 W.Va. 416, 421 , 473 S.E.2d 131, 136 (1996), that "waiver necessarily precludes salvage by plain error review.” But see State v. Redden, 199 W.Va. 660 , 487 S.E.2d 318 (1997) (using plain error to address an invited error issue that involved a fundamental right secured by the state and federal constitutions). .In syllabus point 5 of Games we held: Upon petition, this Court will review all punitive damages awards. 2000It was noted in State v. Knuckles, 196 W.Va. 416, 421 , 473 S.E.2d 131, 136 (1996), that "waiver necessarily precludes salvage by plain error review.” But see State v. Redden, 199 W.Va. 660 , 487 S.E.2d 318 (1997) (using plain error to address an invited error issue that involved a fundamental right secured by the state and federal constitutions). .In syllabus point 5 of Games we held: Upon petition, this Court will review all punitive damages awards. | 1 | 1 |
Hormel v. Helveringgreen2 sentences1996See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121 , 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877 , 49 L.Ed.2d 826, 837 (1976); Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 558 , 61 S.Ct. 719, 722 , 85 L.Ed. 1037, 1042 (1941). 1996See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121 , 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877 , 49 L.Ed.2d 826, 837 (1976); Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 558 , 61 S.Ct. 719, 722 , 85 L.Ed. 1037, 1042 (1941). | 1 | 1 |
Singleton v. Wulffgreen2 sentences1996See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121 , 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877 , 49 L.Ed.2d 826, 837 (1976); Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 558 , 61 S.Ct. 719, 722 , 85 L.Ed. 1037, 1042 (1941). 1996See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121 , 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877 , 49 L.Ed.2d 826, 837 (1976); Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 558 , 61 S.Ct. 719, 722 , 85 L.Ed. 1037, 1042 (1941). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maples v. West Virginia Department of Commerce
green
2 sentences2017We have held that “‘[a] litigant may not silently acquiesce to an alleged error, or actively contribute to such error, and then raise that error as a reason for reversal on appeal.’ Syllabus Point 1, Maples v. West Virginia Dep’t of Commerce, 197 W.Va. 318 , 475 S.E.2d 410 (1996).” Syl. 2017We have held that “‘[a] litigant may not silently acquiesce to an alleged error, or actively contribute to such error, and then raise that error as a reason for reversal on appeal.’ Syllabus Point 1, Maples v. West Virginia Dep’t of Commerce, 197 W.Va. 318 , 475 S.E.2d 410 (1996).” Syl. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Guthrie
green
2 sentences2014Although the State has briefed the additional incidents of domestic violence under the invited error doctrine, 9 we believe the curative admissibility rule is the more appropriate doctrine for evaluating this issue. 10 See Longwell v. Hodge, 171 W.Va. 45, 47 , 297 S.E.2d 820, 822 (1982) (“We agree with the Circuit Court, and affirm its decision, although for different reasons than those expressed by the lower court.”). “[T]he curative admissibility rule comes into play when irrelevant evidence is introduced without objection and the opponent seeks to introduce rebuttal evidence that is also ir 2014Although the State has briefed the additional incidents of domestic violence under the invited error doctrine, 9 we believe the curative admissibility rule is the more appropriate doctrine for evaluating this issue. 10 See Longwell v. Hodge, 171 W.Va. 45, 47 , 297 S.E.2d 820, 822 (1982) (“We agree with the Circuit Court, and affirm its decision, although for different reasons than those expressed by the lower court.”). “[T]he curative admissibility rule comes into play when irrelevant evidence is introduced without objection and the opponent seeks to introduce rebuttal evidence that is also ir | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Bowman
green
2 sentences2013Pt. 2, State v. Bowman, 155 W.Va. 562 , 184 S.E.2d 314 (1971).” Syl. 2013Pt. 2, State v. Bowman, 155 W.Va. 562 , 184 S.E.2d 314 (1971).” Syl. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences2004See State v. Redden, 199 W.Va. 660 , 487 S.E.2d 318 (1997) (using plain error to address an invited error issue that involved a fundamental right secured by the state and federal constitutions); State v. Miller, 184 W.Va. 367 , 400 S.E.2d 611 (1990) (same). 2004See State v. Redden, 199 W.Va. 660 , 487 S.E.2d 318 (1997) (using plain error to address an invited error issue that involved a fundamental right secured by the state and federal constitutions); State v. Miller, 184 W.Va. 367 , 400 S.E.2d 611 (1990) (same). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2004As a general rule, “ ‘[a] judgment will not be reversed for any error in the record introduced by or'invited by the party seeking reversal’ Syl. pt. 21, State v. Riley, 151 W.Va. 364 , 151 S.E.2d 308 (1966).” Syl. pt. 4, State v. Johnson, 197 W.Va. 575 , 476 S.E.2d 522 (1996). 2004As a general rule, “ ‘[a] judgment will not be reversed for any error in the record introduced by or'invited by the party seeking reversal’ Syl. pt. 21, State v. Riley, 151 W.Va. 364 , 151 S.E.2d 308 (1966).” Syl. pt. 4, State v. Johnson, 197 W.Va. 575 , 476 S.E.2d 522 (1996). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences2004“To trigger application of the ‘plain ¡-nor’ doctrine, there must be (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights; and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” Syl. pt. 7, State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3 , 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995). 2004“To trigger application of the ‘plain ¡-nor’ doctrine, there must be (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights; and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” Syl. pt. 7, State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3 , 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Riley
green
2 sentences2004As a general rule, “ ‘[a] judgment will not be reversed for any error in the record introduced by or'invited by the party seeking reversal’ Syl. pt. 21, State v. Riley, 151 W.Va. 364 , 151 S.E.2d 308 (1966).” Syl. pt. 4, State v. Johnson, 197 W.Va. 575 , 476 S.E.2d 522 (1996). 2004As a general rule, “ ‘[a] judgment will not be reversed for any error in the record introduced by or'invited by the party seeking reversal’ Syl. pt. 21, State v. Riley, 151 W.Va. 364 , 151 S.E.2d 308 (1966).” Syl. pt. 4, State v. Johnson, 197 W.Va. 575 , 476 S.E.2d 522 (1996). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Grimm
green
1 sentence1979State v. Grimm, 156 W. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Graham
green
2 sentences1979People v. Graham, 78 Cal. Rptr. 217 , 71 Cal.2d 303 , 455 P.2d 153 (1969). 1979People v. Graham, 78 Cal. Rptr. 217 , 71 Cal.2d 303 , 455 P.2d 153 (1969). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.