contention error in West Virginia

2003To the contrary, "[t]he `injury' that underlies a claim for medical monitoring— just as with any other cause of action sounding in tort—is `the invasion of any legally protected interest." 206 W.Va. at 139 , 522 S.E.2d at 430 .

2003To the contrary, "[t]he `injury' that underlies a claim for medical monitoring— just as with any other cause of action sounding in tort—is `the invasion of any legally protected interest." 206 W.Va. at 139 , 522 S.E.2d at 430 .

1961"We feel therefore that the preferable rule in this state in view of our statute and the custom and practice prevalent thereunder is that whether, under the circumstances of the particular case, the arguments of counsel suggesting a mathematical basis for fixing damages for pain and suffering is an improper invasion of the rights of the jury is to be determined by the trial judge in the exercise of judicial discretion." In Continental Bus System, Inc. v. Toombs, Tex.Civ.App., 325 S.W.2d 153 , in approving an argument of counsel in which a mathematical or per diem formula was used in connection

1961App., 325 S. W. 2d 153 , in approving an argument of counsel in which a mathematical or per diem formula was used in connection with the amount of damages to be awarded for pain and suffering, the court said: “The contention of error is predicated basically upon the theory that it is improper for any argument to be made to the jury upon the matter of any mathematical calculation of pain and suffering on a per diem or similar basis.

1961Continental and Davis refer to and copy extensively from the majority opinion in the case of Botta v. Brunner, 1958, 26 N.J. 82 , 138 A.2d 713 , summarized at 60 A.L.R.2d 1331 , with opinion copied beginning at page 1335, in which the arguments are marshalled against the permitting of plaintiffs' attorney to argue pain and suffering damages on such a basis.

1961Continental and Davis refer to and copy extensively from the majority opinion in the case of Botta v. Brunner, 1958, 26 N.J. 82 , 138 A.2d 713 , summarized at 60 A.L.R.2d 1331 , with opinion copied beginning at page 1335, in which the arguments are marshalled against the permitting of plaintiffs' attorney to argue pain and suffering damages on such a basis.

2017Id. at 70; 322 S.E.2d at 702 .

2013After undertaking such evaluation, the Wood court was “satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that disclosure of this testimonial statement did not contribute to the appellant’s conviction.” Id. 19 In the present ease, this Court’s analysis of the State’s contention that the error of admitting Dr. Kaplan’s testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt includes an examination of the record for any indication that Dr. Kaplan’s testimony could have influenced the jury’s verdict.

1994More specifically, the court stated “there was *130 the imprimatur of character, credibility and reliability that was automatically implied as coming from the court itself when the trial judge introduced the witness as his present law clerk.” Id. at 598 .

1981This exception as set out in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 ,89 *624 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), permits a warrantless search of the person and the immediate geographic area under his physical control as an incident to a lawful arrest.

1981This exception as set out in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 ,89 *624 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), permits a warrantless search of the person and the immediate geographic area under his physical control as an incident to a lawful arrest.

1970It is the contention of counsel for the defendant that the warning or admonition to a suspect, in order to render his subsequent confession admissible, must not only state that anything the suspect may say “may” be used against him in court but that the warning or admonition additionally must state that anything the suspect may say “will be used” in court against him if he is later tried on a criminal charge. *754 In support of the contention that the warnings or admonitions expressed to the defendant by the officers were so incomplete as to render the confession inadmissible, counsel for the

1970It is the contention of counsel for the defendant that the warning or admonition to a suspect, in order to render his subsequent confession admissible, must not only state that anything the suspect may say “may” be used against him in court but that the warning or admonition additionally must state that anything the suspect may say “will be used” in court against him if he is later tried on a criminal charge. *754 In support of the contention that the warnings or admonitions expressed to the defendant by the officers were so incomplete as to render the confession inadmissible, counsel for the

1928In support of the contention of error on this point, defendants’ brief cites Van Blaricom v. Dodgson, 220 N. Y. 111 ; Woods v. Clements, 113 Miss. 720 ; Elms v. Flick, 100 Ohio St. 186 ; Arkin v. Page, 287 Ill. 420 ; Cohen v. Meador, (Va.) 89 S. E. 878 ; Pratt v. Caloutier (Me.) 1101 Atl. 353 ; Smith v. Weaver, (Ind.) 124 N. E. 507 ; Mooney v. Canier, (Iowa) 197 N. E. 625 .

1928In support of the contention of error on this point, defendants’ brief cites Van Blaricom v. Dodgson, 220 N. Y. 111 ; Woods v. Clements, 113 Miss. 720 ; Elms v. Flick, 100 Ohio St. 186 ; Arkin v. Page, 287 Ill. 420 ; Cohen v. Meador, (Va.) 89 S. E. 878 ; Pratt v. Caloutier (Me.) 1101 Atl. 353 ; Smith v. Weaver, (Ind.) 124 N. E. 507 ; Mooney v. Canier, (Iowa) 197 N. E. 625 .

1928In support of the contention of error on this point, defendants’ brief cites Van Blaricom v. Dodgson, 220 N. Y. 111 ; Woods v. Clements, 113 Miss. 720 ; Elms v. Flick, 100 Ohio St. 186 ; Arkin v. Page, 287 Ill. 420 ; Cohen v. Meador, (Va.) 89 S. E. 878 ; Pratt v. Caloutier (Me.) 1101 Atl. 353 ; Smith v. Weaver, (Ind.) 124 N. E. 507 ; Mooney v. Canier, (Iowa) 197 N. E. 625 .

1928In support of the contention of error on this point, defendants’ brief cites Van Blaricom v. Dodgson, 220 N. Y. 111 ; Woods v. Clements, 113 Miss. 720 ; Elms v. Flick, 100 Ohio St. 186 ; Arkin v. Page, 287 Ill. 420 ; Cohen v. Meador, (Va.) 89 S. E. 878 ; Pratt v. Caloutier (Me.) 1101 Atl. 353 ; Smith v. Weaver, (Ind.) 124 N. E. 507 ; Mooney v. Canier, (Iowa) 197 N. E. 625 .

1925Alford v. State, 8 Tex. App. 525; Cole v. State, 45 Tex. Crim. 225 , 75 S. W. 527 ; Comm. v. Drew, 4 Mass. 391 ; and others.

1925Alford v. State, 8 Tex. App. 525; Cole v. State, 45 Tex. Crim. 225 , 75 S. W. 527 ; Comm. v. Drew, 4 Mass. 391 ; and others.

1925Alford v. State, 8 Tex. App. 525; Cole v. State, 45 Tex. Crim. 225 , 75 S. W. 527 ; Comm. v. Drew, 4 Mass. 391 ; and others.

1921To support the contention that the instruction would lead the jury into believing that the trial court believed the defendant guilty of an attempt to commit murder in the first degree, an instruction given in State v. Allen, 45 W.

1893As to the contention that there is error in the fact that counsel read part of the syllabus in Criswell v. Railroad Co., 30 W.

1893As to the contention that there is error in the fact that counsel read part of the syllabus in Criswell v. Railroad Co., 30 W.