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.
15 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frye v. United Statesred2 sentences2010See Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39, 44 , 443 S.E.2d 196, 201 (1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1129 , 114 S.Ct. 2137 , 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994) (citing the United States Supreme Court’s determination that the Frye rule, Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46 , 293 F. 1013 (1923), was inconsistent with Rule 702). 2010See Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39, 44 , 443 S.E.2d 196, 201 (1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1129 , 114 S.Ct. 2137 , 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994) (citing the United States Supreme Court’s determination that the Frye rule, Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46 , 293 F. 1013 (1923), was inconsistent with Rule 702). | 5 | 9 |
Wilt v. Burackergreen2 sentences2010See Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39, 44 , 443 S.E.2d 196, 201 (1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1129 , 114 S.Ct. 2137 , 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994) (citing the United States Supreme Court’s determination that the Frye rule, Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46 , 293 F. 1013 (1923), was inconsistent with Rule 702). 2010See Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39, 44 , 443 S.E.2d 196, 201 (1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1129 , 114 S.Ct. 2137 , 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994) (citing the United States Supreme Court’s determination that the Frye rule, Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46 , 293 F. 1013 (1923), was inconsistent with Rule 702). | 3 | 4 |
Buracker v. Wiltgreen2 sentences2010See Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39, 44 , 443 S.E.2d 196, 201 (1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1129 , 114 S.Ct. 2137 , 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994) (citing the United States Supreme Court’s determination that the Frye rule, Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46 , 293 F. 1013 (1923), was inconsistent with Rule 702). 2010See Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39, 44 , 443 S.E.2d 196, 201 (1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1129 , 114 S.Ct. 2137 , 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994) (citing the United States Supreme Court’s determination that the Frye rule, Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46 , 293 F. 1013 (1923), was inconsistent with Rule 702). | 3 | 3 |
Uberoi v. University of Coloradogreen2 sentences2010See Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39, 44 , 443 S.E.2d 196, 201 (1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1129 , 114 S.Ct. 2137 , 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994) (citing the United States Supreme Court’s determination that the Frye rule, Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46 , 293 F. 1013 (1923), was inconsistent with Rule 702). 2010See Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39, 44 , 443 S.E.2d 196, 201 (1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1129 , 114 S.Ct. 2137 , 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994) (citing the United States Supreme Court’s determination that the Frye rule, Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46 , 293 F. 1013 (1923), was inconsistent with Rule 702). | 3 | 3 |
Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Raineygreen2 sentences2015See also Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W.Va. at 520 , 466 S.E.2d at 179 (“In Daubert/Wilt, the Frye test was abandoned by the courts, concluding that Frye’s rigid standard was inconsistent with the liberal thrust of the Federal and West Virginia Rules of Evidence.” (emphasis in original)); Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 169 , 109 S.Ct. 439 , 102 L.Ed.2d 445 (1988) (highlighting the “‘liberal thrust’ of the Federal Rules and their ‘general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to opinion testimony.’”). 2015See also Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W.Va. at 520 , 466 S.E.2d at 179 (“In Daubert/Wilt, the Frye test was abandoned by the courts, concluding that Frye’s rigid standard was inconsistent with the liberal thrust of the Federal and West Virginia Rules of Evidence.” (emphasis in original)); Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 169 , 109 S.Ct. 439 , 102 L.Ed.2d 445 (1988) (highlighting the “‘liberal thrust’ of the Federal Rules and their ‘general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to opinion testimony.’”). | 2 | 5 |
Gentry v. Mangumgreen2 sentences2015See also Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W.Va. at 520 , 466 S.E.2d at 179 (“In Daubert/Wilt, the Frye test was abandoned by the courts, concluding that Frye’s rigid standard was inconsistent with the liberal thrust of the Federal and West Virginia Rules of Evidence.” (emphasis in original)); Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 169 , 109 S.Ct. 439 , 102 L.Ed.2d 445 (1988) (highlighting the “‘liberal thrust’ of the Federal Rules and their ‘general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to opinion testimony.’”). 2015See also Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W.Va. at 520 , 466 S.E.2d at 179 (“In Daubert/Wilt, the Frye test was abandoned by the courts, concluding that Frye’s rigid standard was inconsistent with the liberal thrust of the Federal and West Virginia Rules of Evidence.” (emphasis in original)); Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 169 , 109 S.Ct. 439 , 102 L.Ed.2d 445 (1988) (highlighting the “‘liberal thrust’ of the Federal Rules and their ‘general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to opinion testimony.’”). | 2 | 2 |
Timothy Duane Arcoren v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2008The rule “is one of admissibility rather than exclusion.” Arcoren v. United States, 929 F.2d 1235, 1239 (8th Cir.1991). 2008The rule “is one of admissibility rather than exclusion.” Arcoren v. United States, 929 F.2d 1235, 1239 (8th Cir.1991). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Clawsonyellow2 sentences1995Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), supersede ed by statute as stated in Daubert, supra; State v. Clawson, 165 W.Va. 588 , 270 S.E.2d 659 (1980) (explicitly adopted Frye), receded from by Wilt v. Buracker, supra. In Daubert/Wilt, the Frye test was abandoned by the courts, concluding that Frye’s rigid standard was inconsistent with the liberal thrust of the Federal and the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. 1995Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), supersede ed by statute as stated in Daubert, supra; State v. Clawson, 165 W.Va. 588 , 270 S.E.2d 659 (1980) (explicitly adopted Frye), receded from by Wilt v. Buracker, supra. In Daubert/Wilt, the Frye test was abandoned by the courts, concluding that Frye’s rigid standard was inconsistent with the liberal thrust of the Federal and the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. | 1 | 4 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2002In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the Court examined the Frye standard in conjunction with Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. [19] Deeming Frye to have been superseded by Rule 702, the Daubert Court summarized its position regarding the admissibility of scientific evidence by stating "[g]eneral acceptance" is not a necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence, but the Rules of Evidence — especially *142 Rule 702—do assign to the trial judge the task of ensuri 2002In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the Court examined the Frye standard in conjunction with Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. [19] Deeming Frye to have been superseded by Rule 702, the Daubert Court summarized its position regarding the admissibility of scientific evidence by stating "[g]eneral acceptance" is not a necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence, but the Rules of Evidence — especially *142 Rule 702—do assign to the trial judge the task of ensuri | 1 | 3 |
State v. Armstronggreen2 sentences1994As we stated in Syllabus Point 8 of Clawson , where the scientific test is generally accepted, it can be judicially noticed and the expert need not demonstrate its scientific validity. 5 We also stated in note 4 of State v. Armstrong, 179 W.Va. at 439-40, 369 S.E.2d at 874-75 (1988), that there is a general trend under Rule 702 to liberalize the Frye rule: “An increasing number of the courts and many of the leading commentators interpret Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which is identical to our Rule 702, as limiting the Frye ‘general acceptance’ test to a test solely for determining 1994As we stated in Syllabus Point 8 of Clawson , where the scientific test is generally accepted, it can be judicially noticed and the expert need not demonstrate its scientific validity. 5 We also stated in note 4 of State v. Armstrong, 179 W.Va. at 439-40, 369 S.E.2d at 874-75 (1988), that there is a general trend under Rule 702 to liberalize the Frye rule: “An increasing number of the courts and many of the leading commentators interpret Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which is identical to our Rule 702, as limiting the Frye ‘general acceptance’ test to a test solely for determining | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Carl Joseph Baller, Jr.green2 sentences1980United States v. Brown, 557 F.2d 541, 556 (6th Cir. 1977) (ion microprobic test for hair identification); United States v. Alexander, 526 F.2d 161, 163-164 (8th Cir. 1975) (polygraph); United States v. Bailer, 519 F.2d 463, 466 (4th Cir. W. 1980United States v. Brown, 557 F.2d 541, 556 (6th Cir. 1977) (ion microprobic test for hair identification); United States v. Alexander, 526 F.2d 161, 163-164 (8th Cir. 1975) (polygraph); United States v. Bailer, 519 F.2d 463, 466 (4th Cir. W. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Steven John Alexandergreen2 sentences1980United States v. Brown, 557 F.2d 541, 556 (6th Cir. 1977) (ion microprobic test for hair identification); United States v. Alexander, 526 F.2d 161, 163-164 (8th Cir. 1975) (polygraph); United States v. Bailer, 519 F.2d 463, 466 (4th Cir. W. 1980United States v. Brown, 557 F.2d 541, 556 (6th Cir. 1977) (ion microprobic test for hair identification); United States v. Alexander, 526 F.2d 161, 163-164 (8th Cir. 1975) (polygraph); United States v. Bailer, 519 F.2d 463, 466 (4th Cir. W. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Hayward Leslie Browngreen2 sentences1980United States v. Brown, 557 F.2d 541, 556 (6th Cir. 1977) (ion microprobic test for hair identification); United States v. Alexander, 526 F.2d 161, 163-164 (8th Cir. 1975) (polygraph); United States v. Bailer, 519 F.2d 463, 466 (4th Cir. W. 1980United States v. Brown, 557 F.2d 541, 556 (6th Cir. 1977) (ion microprobic test for hair identification); United States v. Alexander, 526 F.2d 161, 163-164 (8th Cir. 1975) (polygraph); United States v. Bailer, 519 F.2d 463, 466 (4th Cir. W. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Clawsonyellow2 sentences1995Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), supersede ed by statute as stated in Daubert, supra; State v. Clawson, 165 W.Va. 588 , 270 S.E.2d 659 (1980) (explicitly adopted Frye), receded from by Wilt v. Buracker, supra. In Daubert/Wilt, the Frye test was abandoned by the courts, concluding that Frye’s rigid standard was inconsistent with the liberal thrust of the Federal and the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. 1995Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), supersede ed by statute as stated in Daubert, supra; State v. Clawson, 165 W.Va. 588 , 270 S.E.2d 659 (1980) (explicitly adopted Frye), receded from by Wilt v. Buracker, supra. In Daubert/Wilt, the Frye test was abandoned by the courts, concluding that Frye’s rigid standard was inconsistent with the liberal thrust of the Federal and the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Derr
green
2 sentences2010Thus, the Rules of Evidence impliedly repeal prior decisional admissibility rules that have not been codified. 192 W.Va. at 177-178, 451 S.E.2d at 743-744 . 2010Thus, the Rules of Evidence impliedly repeal prior decisional admissibility rules that have not been codified. 192 W.Va. at 177-178, 451 S.E.2d at 743-744 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Missouri v. Frye
green
2 sentences2026The circuit court analyzed the issue under Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012).2 A Frye claim requires that the prejudice prong of Strickland be proven by “a reasonable probability” (1) that the defendant would have accepted the earlier plea offer, and (2) that neither the state nor the trial court would have prevented the resulting plea agreement from being implemented. 2026The circuit court analyzed the issue under Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012).2 A Frye claim requires that the prejudice prong of Strickland be proven by “a reasonable probability” (1) that the defendant would have accepted the earlier plea offer, and (2) that neither the state nor the trial court would have prevented the resulting plea agreement from being implemented. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Geary Land Co. v. Conley
green
2 sentences1988We need not reach the Frye issue in the present case. 4 The harmless error rule, Rule 61 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, applies to this assignment of error involving the admissibility of expert testimony on the novel prosthesis. 5 In syllabus point 2 of Boggs v. Settle, 150 W.Va. 330 , 145 S.E.2d 446 (1965), the Court held: “On appeal of a case involving an action covered by the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court will disregard and regard as harmless any error, defect or irregularity in the proceedings in the trial court which does not affect the substantial rights of the par 1988We need not reach the Frye issue in the present case. 4 The harmless error rule, Rule 61 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, applies to this assignment of error involving the admissibility of expert testimony on the novel prosthesis. 5 In syllabus point 2 of Boggs v. Settle, 150 W.Va. 330 , 145 S.E.2d 446 (1965), the Court held: “On appeal of a case involving an action covered by the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court will disregard and regard as harmless any error, defect or irregularity in the proceedings in the trial court which does not affect the substantial rights of the par | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Original Glorious Church of God In Christ, Inc. of the Apostolic Faith v. Myers
green
2 sentences1988We need not reach the Frye issue in the present case. 4 The harmless error rule, Rule 61 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, applies to this assignment of error involving the admissibility of expert testimony on the novel prosthesis. 5 In syllabus point 2 of Boggs v. Settle, 150 W.Va. 330 , 145 S.E.2d 446 (1965), the Court held: “On appeal of a case involving an action covered by the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court will disregard and regard as harmless any error, defect or irregularity in the proceedings in the trial court which does not affect the substantial rights of the par 1988We need not reach the Frye issue in the present case. 4 The harmless error rule, Rule 61 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, applies to this assignment of error involving the admissibility of expert testimony on the novel prosthesis. 5 In syllabus point 2 of Boggs v. Settle, 150 W.Va. 330 , 145 S.E.2d 446 (1965), the Court held: “On appeal of a case involving an action covered by the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court will disregard and regard as harmless any error, defect or irregularity in the proceedings in the trial court which does not affect the substantial rights of the par | 1 | 1988–1988 |
McAllister v. Weirton Hospital Co.
green
2 sentences1988We need not reach the Frye issue in the present case. 4 The harmless error rule, Rule 61 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, applies to this assignment of error involving the admissibility of expert testimony on the novel prosthesis. 5 In syllabus point 2 of Boggs v. Settle, 150 W.Va. 330 , 145 S.E.2d 446 (1965), the Court held: “On appeal of a case involving an action covered by the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court will disregard and regard as harmless any error, defect or irregularity in the proceedings in the trial court which does not affect the substantial rights of the par 1988We need not reach the Frye issue in the present case. 4 The harmless error rule, Rule 61 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, applies to this assignment of error involving the admissibility of expert testimony on the novel prosthesis. 5 In syllabus point 2 of Boggs v. Settle, 150 W.Va. 330 , 145 S.E.2d 446 (1965), the Court held: “On appeal of a case involving an action covered by the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court will disregard and regard as harmless any error, defect or irregularity in the proceedings in the trial court which does not affect the substantial rights of the par | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Hampton
red
2 sentences1988Hampton, 746 P.2d at 950-51 . (footnote omitted). 1988Hampton, 746 P.2d at 950-51 . (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Boggs v. Settle
green
2 sentences1988We need not reach the Frye issue in the present case. 4 The harmless error rule, Rule 61 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, applies to this assignment of error involving the admissibility of expert testimony on the novel prosthesis. 5 In syllabus point 2 of Boggs v. Settle, 150 W.Va. 330 , 145 S.E.2d 446 (1965), the Court held: “On appeal of a case involving an action covered by the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court will disregard and regard as harmless any error, defect or irregularity in the proceedings in the trial court which does not affect the substantial rights of the par 1988We need not reach the Frye issue in the present case. 4 The harmless error rule, Rule 61 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, applies to this assignment of error involving the admissibility of expert testimony on the novel prosthesis. 5 In syllabus point 2 of Boggs v. Settle, 150 W.Va. 330 , 145 S.E.2d 446 (1965), the Court held: “On appeal of a case involving an action covered by the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court will disregard and regard as harmless any error, defect or irregularity in the proceedings in the trial court which does not affect the substantial rights of the par | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.