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 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strahin v. Lantzgreen2 sentences1996See Strahin v. Lantz, 193 W.Va. 285 , 286 n. 1, 456 S.E.2d 12 , 13 n. 1 (1995) (in “[a]ddressing the finality requirement, we adopt a practical interpretation that looks to the intention of the circuit court”). 1996See Strahin v. Lantz, 193 W.Va. 285 , 286 n. 1, 456 S.E.2d 12 , 13 n. 1 (1995) (in “[a]ddressing the finality requirement, we adopt a practical interpretation that looks to the intention of the circuit court”). | 2 | 3 |
Vaughan v. Greater Huntington Park & Recreation Districtgreen2 sentences2020“By limiting appellate jurisdiction to final judgments, the finality rule serves to avoid piecemeal review of trial court rulings which do not end litigation regarding all or some claims or parties in a case.” Vaughn v. Greater Huntington Park and Recreation Dist., 223 W. 2020“By limiting appellate jurisdiction to final judgments, the finality rule serves to avoid piecemeal review of trial court rulings which do not end litigation regarding all or some claims or parties in a case.” Vaughn v. Greater Huntington Park and Recreation Dist., 223 W. | 2 | 2 |
cluster 533812green2 sentences2019See Vaughn v. Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc., 891 F.2d 1195 (5th Cir.1990) (holding the intention of the circuit court is controlling in final judgment determinations).” While we acknowledge this procedure was in relation to direct appeals, we find it persuasive in the instant matter. 1995See Vaughn v. Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc., 891 F.2d 1195 (5th Cir.1990) (holding the intention of the circuit court is controlling in final judgment determinations). | 2 | 2 |
James M.B. v. Carolyn M.green2 sentences2009See 193 W.Va. at 292 -293 n. 3, 456 S.E.2d at 19-20 . 2009See 193 W.Va. at 292 -293 n. 3, 456 S.E.2d at 19-20 . | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Powderidge Unit Owners Ass'n v. Highland Properties, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2024Because of the judiciary’s adherence to the finality doctrine, relief under this provision is not to be liberally granted.’” Powderidge Unit Owners Ass’n v. Highland Props., Ltd., 196 W.Va. 692 , 704 n.21, 474 S.E.2d 872 , 884 n.21 (1996) (quoting Cox v. State, 194 W. 2024Because of the judiciary’s adherence to the finality doctrine, relief under this provision is not to be liberally granted.’” Powderidge Unit Owners Ass’n v. Highland Props., Ltd., 196 W.Va. 692 , 704 n.21, 474 S.E.2d 872 , 884 n.21 (1996) (quoting Cox v. State, 194 W. | 5 | 2001–2024 |
Cox v. State
green
2 sentences2024Because of the judiciary’s adherence to the finality doctrine, relief under this provision is not to be liberally granted.’” Powderidge Unit Owners Ass’n v. Highland Props., Ltd., 196 W.Va. 692 , 704 n.21, 474 S.E.2d 872 , 884 n.21 (1996) (quoting Cox v. State, 194 W. 2001Because of the judiciary’s adherence to the finality doctrine, relief under this provision is not to be liberally granted.’” Powderidge Unit Owners Ass’n v. Highland Props., Ltd., 196 W.Va. 692 , 704 n. 21, 474 S.E.2d 872 , 884 n. 21 (1996) (quoting Cox v. State, 194 W.Va. 210 , 219 n. 5, 460 S.E.2d 25 , 34 n. 5 (1995) (per curiam) (Cleekley, J., concurring) (citations omitted)). | 4 | 2001–2024 |
Durm v. Heck's, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009The appellants counter that the order falls under the exception to the finality rule announced by this Court in Durm v. Heck’s, Inc., 184 W.Va. 562 , 401 S.E.2d 908 (1991). 2009The appellants counter that the order falls under the exception to the finality rule announced by this Court in Durm v. Heck’s, Inc., 184 W.Va. 562 , 401 S.E.2d 908 (1991). | 3 | 1995–2009 |
Halstead v. Horton
green
2 sentences2011The Syllabus of State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. 935 , 253 S.E.2d 534 (1979), states: “A new trial will not be granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence unless the case comes within the following rules: (1) The evidence must appear to have been discovered since the trial, and, from the affidavit ’of the new witness, what such evidence will be, or its absence satisfactorily explained. (2) It must appear from facts stated in his affidavit that plaintiff was diligent in ascertaining and securing his evidence, and that the new evidence is such that due diligence would not have secured it befor 2011The Syllabus of State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. 935 , 253 S.E.2d 534 (1979), states: “A new trial will not be granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence unless the case comes within the following rules: (1) The evidence must appear to have been discovered since the trial, and, from the affidavit ’of the new witness, what such evidence will be, or its absence satisfactorily explained. (2) It must appear from facts stated in his affidavit that plaintiff was diligent in ascertaining and securing his evidence, and that the new evidence is such that due diligence would not have secured it befor | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Frazier
green
2 sentences2011The Syllabus of State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. 935 , 253 S.E.2d 534 (1979), states: “A new trial will not be granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence unless the case comes within the following rules: (1) The evidence must appear to have been discovered since the trial, and, from the affidavit ’of the new witness, what such evidence will be, or its absence satisfactorily explained. (2) It must appear from facts stated in his affidavit that plaintiff was diligent in ascertaining and securing his evidence, and that the new evidence is such that due diligence would not have secured it befor 2011The Syllabus of State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. 935 , 253 S.E.2d 534 (1979), states: “A new trial will not be granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence unless the case comes within the following rules: (1) The evidence must appear to have been discovered since the trial, and, from the affidavit ’of the new witness, what such evidence will be, or its absence satisfactorily explained. (2) It must appear from facts stated in his affidavit that plaintiff was diligent in ascertaining and securing his evidence, and that the new evidence is such that due diligence would not have secured it befor | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Province v. Province
green
2 sentences2009Discussing the finality rule with regard to certified questions we observed in the case of Province v. Province, 196 W.Va. 473 , 473 S.E.2d 894 (1996), that in order to establish the requisite degree of finality the judgment must completely dispose of at least one substantive claim. 2009Discussing the finality rule with regard to certified questions we observed in the case of Province v. Province, 196 W.Va. 473 , 473 S.E.2d 894 (1996), that in order to establish the requisite degree of finality the judgment must completely dispose of at least one substantive claim. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Sisson v. Seneca Mental Health/Mental Retardation Council, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995In the context of a summary judgment, we stated first in Syllabus Point 2 of Durm v. Heck’s, Inc., 184 W.Va. 562, 401 S.E.2d 908 (1991), and again in Syllabus Point 1 of Sisson v. Seneca Mental Health/Mental Retardation Council, Inc., 185 W.Va. 33 , 404 S.E.2d 425 (1991), that the key to determining if an order is final is not whether Rule 54(b) language is included in the order, but is whether the order “approximates a final order in its nature and effect.” We now extend application of the rule announced in Durm and Sisson to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). 6 B. 1995In the context of a summary judgment, we stated first in Syllabus Point 2 of Durm v. Heck’s, Inc., 184 W.Va. 562, 401 S.E.2d 908 (1991), and again in Syllabus Point 1 of Sisson v. Seneca Mental Health/Mental Retardation Council, Inc., 185 W.Va. 33 , 404 S.E.2d 425 (1991), that the key to determining if an order is final is not whether Rule 54(b) language is included in the order, but is whether the order “approximates a final order in its nature and effect.” We now extend application of the rule announced in Durm and Sisson to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). 6 B. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.