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.
141 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1939–2026 17 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 Ex Rel. Hoover v. Bergergreen2 sentences2026Va. 12 , 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996): In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the lower tribunal’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether the lower t 2023Va. at 657 , 510 S.E.2d at 491 ). 4 MGC maintains that “[a] plaintiff’s allegations and the facts of a given incident dictate how a tariff applies, if at all.” We agree, and, in the end, we believe that remaining issues of fact, particularly regarding the parties’ competing theories of causation, render this matter 4 Moreover, we do not believe that the circuit court “order is an oft repeated error or manifests persistent disregard for either procedural or substantive law[.]” Hoover, 199 W. | 1 | 125 |
Crawford v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2021Va. 207 , 75 S.E.2d 370 (1953). 15 Under these circumstances, this Court considers five factors as guidelines for whether a writ of prohibition should issue: In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not 2017See also, Syllabus Point 1, Crawford v. Taylor, 138 W.Va. 207 , 75 S.E.2d 370 (1953) (“Prohibition lies only to restrain inferior courts from proceeding in Continued . . . 5 In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a | 1 | 3 |
State Ex Rel. Valley Distributors, Inc. v. Oakleygreen2 sentences2006Valley Distributors, Inc. v. Oakley, 153 W.Va. 94, 99 , 168 S.E.2d 532, 535 (1969). 3 Further, In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the lower tribunal’s order 2006Valley Distributors, Inc. v. Oakley, 153 W.Va. 94, 99 , 168 S.E.2d 532, 535 (1969). 3 Further, In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the lower tribunal’s order | 1 | 1 |
Holly W. BAUMAN Et Al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Respondent, Union Oil Company, Real Party in Interestgreen2 sentences1979Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977) (citations omitted). [6] Or when one trial court judge interferes with the service of lawful process of another trial court judge. 1979That court set out the following five guidelines for practical application: “(1) The party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as a direct appeal, to attain the relief he or she desires. * * * (2) The petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal (This guideline is closely related to the first). * * * (3) The district court’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law. * * * (4) The district court’s order is an oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules. * * * (5) The district court’s order raises new and importa | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State of West Virginia v. Steward Butler
green
2 sentences2026Va. 168 , 179 n.27, 799 S.E.2d 718 , 729 n.27 (2017). 10 When the State alleges that the circuit court exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court has discretion to issue the writ: In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether the party seeking the writ had no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudice 2023Va. 168 , 799 S.E.2d 718 (2017). 4 The Court has also established the foregoing framework to be used in determining whether a writ of prohibition should be granted: “In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way tha | 2 | 2023–2026 |
Board of Education v. Zando, Martin & Milstead, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022Va. 597 , 390 S.E.2d 796 (1990) (describing the effects of settlement on joint tort-feasor liability). 4 means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the lower tribunal’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether the lower tribunal’s order is an oft repeated error or manifests persistent disregard for either procedural or substantive law; and (5) whether the lower tribunal’s order raises new and important problems or issues of law of first impression. 2022Va. 597 , 390 S.E.2d 796 (1990) (describing the effects of settlement on joint tort-feasor liability). 4 means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the lower tribunal’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether the lower tribunal’s order is an oft repeated error or manifests persistent disregard for either procedural or substantive law; and (5) whether the lower tribunal’s order raises new and important problems or issues of law of first impression. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Smith v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner
green
2 sentences2021Comm’r, 159 W. 2021Comm’r, 159 W. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State Ex Rel. Frazier v. Hrko
green
1 sentence2023Va. at 657 , 510 S.E.2d at 491 ). 4 MGC maintains that “[a] plaintiff’s allegations and the facts of a given incident dictate how a tariff applies, if at all.” We agree, and, in the end, we believe that remaining issues of fact, particularly regarding the parties’ competing theories of causation, render this matter 4 Moreover, we do not believe that the circuit court “order is an oft repeated error or manifests persistent disregard for either procedural or substantive law[.]” Hoover, 199 W. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
SER Thornhill Group v. Charles E. King, Jr., Judge
green
1 sentence2021Va. 564 , 759 S.E.2d 795 (2014). 6 When considering a petition for writ of prohibition, this Court is guided by the following: In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal; (3) whe | 1 | 2021–2021 |
SER Katie Franklin v. Hon. R. Craig Tatterson, Judge
neutral
1 sentence2020Va. 241 , 821 S.E.2d 330 (2018). 2. “‘In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the lower tribunal’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether the | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2015Id. 7 The standard for granting a writ of prohibition is as follows: In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the lower tribunal’s order is clearly erroneous as a | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Woodall v. Laurita
green
1 sentence2014Va. 707 , 195 S.E.2d 717 (1973). 2. “‘In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the lower tribunal’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether the | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Koebert v. City of Clarksburg
green
1 sentence1939Koebert v. City of Clarksburg, 114 W. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
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.