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.
16 Virgin Islands opinions name it 3 courts 1968–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virgin Islands 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Whitmangreen1 sentence2025Whitman, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 457, 463 (1874), and citing Bigelow . | 1 | 1 |
Eileen Gibson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Igreen1 sentence2025Ins., 994 F.3d 182, 187 (3rd Cir. 2021) Govt of the V.1. v. George 2025 VJI.6 8. | 1 | 1 |
Tip Top Constructions Corp. v. Government of the Virgin Islandsgreen1 sentence2025See Skepple, 60 V.I. at 724 (““[)n all instances the jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment may be inquired into, and. . . allow the defendant to show that the court had no jurisdiction over his person.’ Therefore, even though [a defendant] has waived this argument, [the Court] must consider whether the default judgment was entered without the trial court having first obtained personal jurisdiction over [the de fendant] because the issuance of a judgment by a court that has not obtained personal jurisdiction over a defendant is not a valid exercise of judicial power, and the judgment | 1 | 1 |
Southern Recycling, L.L.C.green1 sentence2024See, e.g., In re Southern Recycling, LLC, 982 F.3d 374, 379 (5th Cir. 2020) (“Where, as here, the district court has expressly relied on its resolution of disputed jurisdictional facts, those findings are reviewed for clear error.”); Butler v. Kempthorne, 532 F.3d 1108, 1110 (10th Cir. 2008) (“We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . . . and review findings of jurisdictional facts for clear error.”); Schneer v. Llaurado, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 858, 865 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (“[T]he notion an appellate court may independently reweigh the trial court's findings of jurisdic | 1 | 1 |
Schneer v. Llauradogreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., In re Southern Recycling, LLC, 982 F.3d 374, 379 (5th Cir. 2020) (“Where, as here, the district court has expressly relied on its resolution of disputed jurisdictional facts, those findings are reviewed for clear error.”); Butler v. Kempthorne, 532 F.3d 1108, 1110 (10th Cir. 2008) (“We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . . . and review findings of jurisdictional facts for clear error.”); Schneer v. Llaurado, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 858, 865 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (“[T]he notion an appellate court may independently reweigh the trial court's findings of jurisdic | 1 | 1 |
Butler v. Kempthornegreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., In re Southern Recycling, LLC, 982 F.3d 374, 379 (5th Cir. 2020) (“Where, as here, the district court has expressly relied on its resolution of disputed jurisdictional facts, those findings are reviewed for clear error.”); Butler v. Kempthorne, 532 F.3d 1108, 1110 (10th Cir. 2008) (“We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . . . and review findings of jurisdictional facts for clear error.”); Schneer v. Llaurado, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 858, 865 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (“[T]he notion an appellate court may independently reweigh the trial court's findings of jurisdic | 1 | 1 |
Bridgeforth v. Thorntongreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., In re Southern Recycling, LLC, 982 F.3d 374, 379 (5th Cir. 2020) (“Where, as here, the district court has expressly relied on its resolution of disputed jurisdictional facts, those findings are reviewed for clear error.”); Butler v. Kempthorne, 532 F.3d 1108, 1110 (10th Cir. 2008) (“We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . . . and review findings of jurisdictional facts for clear error.”); Schneer v. Llaurado, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 858, 865 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (“[T]he notion an appellate court may independently reweigh the trial court's findings of jurisdic | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2015A statute “is unconstitutionally vague if it ‘fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement.’ ” LeBlanc v. People, 56 V.l. 536, 541 (V.l. 2012) (quoting United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304 , 128 S. Ct. 1830 , 170 L. 2015A statute “is unconstitutionally vague if it ‘fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement.’ ” LeBlanc v. People, 56 V.l. 536, 541 (V.l. 2012) (quoting United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304 , 128 S. Ct. 1830 , 170 L. | 1 | 1 |
Anderson Jude Okeke v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United Statesgreen1 sentence2014“Perhaps the most fundamental principle of statutory construction is that words in a statute must be given their ordinary meaning whenever possible.” Okeke v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 585, 593 (3d Cir. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
Keenan v. Pricegreen2 sentences2013See Keenan v. Price, 68 Idaho 423, 439 , 195 P.2d 662 (1948) (noting that a title may be resorted to as an aid to construction); 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47:3 (7th ed.) (“Titles have a communicative function. 2013See Keenan v. Price, 68 Idaho 423, 439 , 195 P.2d 662 (1948) (noting that a title may be resorted to as an aid to construction); 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47:3 (7th ed.) (“Titles have a communicative function. | 1 | 1 |
Williams-Jackson v. Public Employees Relations Boardgreen1 sentence2013In Williams-Jackson v. Public Employees Relations Board, 52 V.I. 445, 455 (V.I. 2009), we noted that “[i]t is a fundamental principle that government, in an exercise of authority, must derive its power to act from a source which grants it.” While VIWMA is subject to the provisions of the Personnel Merit System, its powers are set forth, predominantly, in title 29, chapter 8, sections 494-500q of the Virgin Islands Code. | 1 | 1 |
Brady v. Cintrongreen1 sentence2013A. Criminal Legal Malpractice in the Virgin Islands Unlike medical malpractice, which is governed by statute, see Brady v. Cintron, 55 V.I. 802, 812-13 (V.I. 2011), legal malpractice is a common law cause of action. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woodgreen2 sentences2009State v. Wood, 180 Ariz. 53 , 881 P.2d 1158, 1170 (1994) (citations omitted); see also Hornin v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 120 F.2d 500, 504 (3d Cir. 1941) (holding that an objection to a hearsay violation is waived if not raised at trial for “[t]he defendant is not entitled to another opportunity to retry its case by objecting in an appellate court to evidence not objected to below.”). 2009State v. Wood, 180 Ariz. 53 , 881 P.2d 1158, 1170 (1994) (citations omitted); see also Hornin v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 120 F.2d 500, 504 (3d Cir. 1941) (holding that an objection to a hearsay violation is waived if not raised at trial for “[t]he defendant is not entitled to another opportunity to retry its case by objecting in an appellate court to evidence not objected to below.”). | 1 | 1 |
Hornin v. Montgomery Ward & Co.green1 sentence2009State v. Wood, 180 Ariz. 53 , 881 P.2d 1158, 1170 (1994) (citations omitted); see also Hornin v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 120 F.2d 500, 504 (3d Cir. 1941) (holding that an objection to a hearsay violation is waived if not raised at trial for “[t]he defendant is not entitled to another opportunity to retry its case by objecting in an appellate court to evidence not objected to below.”). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 628040green1 sentence2008Dunn v. HOVIC, 28 V.I. 526, 531 , 1 F.3d 1362, 1366-67 (3d. | 1 | 1 |
Olufemi Yussef Abdulai v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United Statesgreen1 sentence2007“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 549 (3d Cir. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virgin Islands. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Armstrong v. Manzo
green
2 sentences2010Ed. 2d 18 (1976) (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 , 85 S. Ct. 1187 , 14 L. 2010Ed. 2d 18 (1976) (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 , 85 S. Ct. 1187 , 14 L. | 2 | 2008–2010 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences2010The United States Supreme Court has long held that “the fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ ” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L. 2010The United States Supreme Court has long held that “the fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ ” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L. | 2 | 2008–2010 |
Roy and Roy Development LLC v. Banco Popular De Puerto Rico
neutral
1 sentence2025Roy does not argue on appeal that his claim is a derivative action Roy, et al. v. Banco Popular de P.R 2025 VI 19 S. Ct. Civ, No. 2021-0034 Opinion of the Court Page 9 of 23 member may sue for injuries to the LLC ”, yet, despite referencing Banks, the Superior Court failed to set forth all three distinct factors of a Banks analysis, simply concluding Given the widespread application of the rules, and their basis in the fundamental principle that a corporation or LLC is a separate legal entity, the Court adopts the shareholder standing rule: (1) a shareholder, director, officer, or employee of | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. Richie Fontaine
green
2 sentences2015“The void-for-vagueness doctrine reflects the fundamental principle that, in order to comply with the requirements of due process, a statute must give fair warning of the conduct that it prohibits.” United States v. Fontaine, 697 F.3d 221, 226 , 57 V.I. 914 (3d Cir. 2012). 2015“The void-for-vagueness doctrine reflects the fundamental principle that, in order to comply with the requirements of due process, a statute must give fair warning of the conduct that it prohibits.” United States v. Fontaine, 697 F.3d 221, 226 , 57 V.I. 914 (3d Cir. 2012). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Connecticut National Bank v. Germain
green
2 sentences2014As the United States Supreme Court has explained: “in interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others ... courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54 , 112 S. Ct. 1146 , 117 L. 2014As the United States Supreme Court has explained: “in interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others ... courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54 , 112 S. Ct. 1146 , 117 L. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Dunn v. HOVIC
neutral
1 sentence2008Dunn v. HOVIC, 28 V.I. 526, 531 , 1 F.3d 1362, 1366-67 (3d. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Wenk v. Webster
neutral
1 sentence2001Contracts § 298; Wenk v. Webster, 9 V.I. 35 (D.V.I. 1971). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Baltimore Butchers Abattoir & Live Stock Co. v. Union Rendering Co.
green
1 sentence1968Co., Md., 17 A.2d 130 , 133: “It is also a fundamental rule that, since restrictions are in derogation of conveyances and repugnant to trade and commerce, restrictive covenants are not favored by the courts, but should be strictly construed against the parties seeking to enforce them. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.