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.
13 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1923–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shaeffer v. Burtongreen2 sentences2010In making this groundless threat, Richmond American knew, but the plaintiffs did not, that "[t]he well established and widely recognized general rule is that an unaccepted offer to compromise a disputed claim is not admissible as evidence[.]" Shaeffer v. Burton, 151 W.Va. 761, 770 , 155 S.E.2d 884, 891 (1967). 2010In making this groundless threat, Richmond American knew, but the plaintiffs did not, that "[t]he well established and widely recognized general rule is that an unaccepted offer to compromise a disputed claim is not admissible as evidence[.]" Shaeffer v. Burton, 151 W.Va. 761, 770 , 155 S.E.2d 884, 891 (1967). | 2 | 3 |
Lively v. Rufusgreen2 sentences2010Accord Lively v. Rufus, 207 W.Va. 436, 449 , 533 S.E.2d 662, 675 (2000) ("[W]e find that the circuit court did not err by excluding the `Settlement and Indemnification Agreement.'"); Schartiger v. Land Use Corp., 187 W.Va. 612, 617 , 420 S.E.2d 883, 888 (1991) ("The trial court properly excluded the evidence of an offer of settlement under Rule 408, W. 2010Accord Lively v. Rufus, 207 W.Va. 436, 449 , 533 S.E.2d 662, 675 (2000) ("[W]e find that the circuit court did not err by excluding the `Settlement and Indemnification Agreement.'"); Schartiger v. Land Use Corp., 187 W.Va. 612, 617 , 420 S.E.2d 883, 888 (1991) ("The trial court properly excluded the evidence of an offer of settlement under Rule 408, W. | 2 | 2 |
Schartiger v. Land Use Corp.green2 sentences2010Accord Lively v. Rufus, 207 W.Va. 436, 449 , 533 S.E.2d 662, 675 (2000) ("[W]e find that the circuit court did not err by excluding the `Settlement and Indemnification Agreement.'"); Schartiger v. Land Use Corp., 187 W.Va. 612, 617 , 420 S.E.2d 883, 888 (1991) ("The trial court properly excluded the evidence of an offer of settlement under Rule 408, W. 2010Accord Lively v. Rufus, 207 W.Va. 436, 449 , 533 S.E.2d 662, 675 (2000) ("[W]e find that the circuit court did not err by excluding the `Settlement and Indemnification Agreement.'"); Schartiger v. Land Use Corp., 187 W.Va. 612, 617 , 420 S.E.2d 883, 888 (1991) ("The trial court properly excluded the evidence of an offer of settlement under Rule 408, W. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Davisgreen2 sentences2018I told him that [the] amount was in excess of a hundred thousand dollars. [The defendant’s] statement to me at that point was, ‘I can’t afford to pay that amount,’ and then I told him – I said, ‘Terry, if you want to do some – negotiate some kind of settlement, you need to talk to our legal counsel or our international president.’”[29] 28 596 F.3d 852 . 29 Id. at 854 (emphasis added). 19 In finding that the statements were not admissible, the Davis court reasoned: There can be no doubt that Davis offered to compromise a disputed claim. 2018I told him that [the] amount was in excess of a hundred thousand dollars. [The defendant’s] statement to me at that point was, ‘I can’t afford to pay that amount,’ and then I told him – I said, ‘Terry, if you want to do some – negotiate some kind of settlement, you need to talk to our legal counsel or our international president.’”[29] 28 596 F.3d 852 . 29 Id. at 854 (emphasis added). 19 In finding that the statements were not admissible, the Davis court reasoned: There can be no doubt that Davis offered to compromise a disputed claim. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Wood Estategreen2 sentences1995This point was made in In re Wood's Estate, 374 Mich. 278, 292 , 132 N.W.2d 35, 45 (1965), overruled on other grounds, Widmayer v. Leonard, 422 Mich. 280 , 373 N.W.2d 538 (1985): "[W]e caution Bench and Bar ... that the language we use in this appellate opinion may not be adopted uncritically for purposes of jury instruction. 1995This point was made in In re Wood's Estate, 374 Mich. 278, 292 , 132 N.W.2d 35, 45 (1965), overruled on other grounds, Widmayer v. Leonard, 422 Mich. 280 , 373 N.W.2d 538 (1985): "[W]e caution Bench and Bar ... that the language we use in this appellate opinion may not be adopted uncritically for purposes of jury instruction. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Charleston Urban Renewal Authority v. Stanley
neutral
2 sentences2011This Court has applied the three-prong standard for establishing an accord and satisfaction as follows: "`To show an accord and satisfaction, the person asserting the defense must prove three elements: (1) Consideration to support an accord and satisfaction; (2) an offer of partial payment in full satisfaction of a disputed claim; and (3) acceptance of the partial payment by the creditor with knowledge that the debtor offered it only upon the condition that the creditor accept the payment in full satisfaction of the disputed *570 claim or not at all.' Syllabus Point 1, Charleston Urban Renewal 2011This Court has applied the three-prong standard for establishing an accord and satisfaction as follows: "`To show an accord and satisfaction, the person asserting the defense must prove three elements: (1) Consideration to support an accord and satisfaction; (2) an offer of partial payment in full satisfaction of a disputed claim; and (3) acceptance of the partial payment by the creditor with knowledge that the debtor offered it only upon the condition that the creditor accept the payment in full satisfaction of the disputed *570 claim or not at all.' Syllabus Point 1, Charleston Urban Renewal | 3 | 1994–2011 |
Painter v. Peavy
green
2 sentences2011This Court has applied the three-prong standard for establishing an accord and satisfaction as follows: "`To show an accord and satisfaction, the person asserting the defense must prove three elements: (1) Consideration to support an accord and satisfaction; (2) an offer of partial payment in full satisfaction of a disputed claim; and (3) acceptance of the partial payment by the creditor with knowledge that the debtor offered it only upon the condition that the creditor accept the payment in full satisfaction of the disputed *570 claim or not at all.' Syllabus Point 1, Charleston Urban Renewal 2011This Court has applied the three-prong standard for establishing an accord and satisfaction as follows: "`To show an accord and satisfaction, the person asserting the defense must prove three elements: (1) Consideration to support an accord and satisfaction; (2) an offer of partial payment in full satisfaction of a disputed claim; and (3) acceptance of the partial payment by the creditor with knowledge that the debtor offered it only upon the condition that the creditor accept the payment in full satisfaction of the disputed *570 claim or not at all.' Syllabus Point 1, Charleston Urban Renewal | 2 | 2002–2011 |
Shore v. Powell
neutral
2 sentences1933“In an action on contract, proof or mere general payment, or of accord and satisfaction of a disputed claim, is admissible under the general issue without specification.” Shore v. Powell, 71 W. 1933Va. 61 , 76 S. E. 126 . | 2 | 1923–1933 |
West Virginia Dept. of Transportation v. Margaret Z. Newton
green
1 sentence2018We have recognized that "[t]he substance of Rule 103(b) is new and was added in 2014." West Virginia Dep't of Transp., Div. of Highways v. Newton , 235 W. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Widmayer v. Leonard
green
2 sentences1995This point was made in In re Wood's Estate, 374 Mich. 278, 292 , 132 N.W.2d 35, 45 (1965), overruled on other grounds, Widmayer v. Leonard, 422 Mich. 280 , 373 N.W.2d 538 (1985): "[W]e caution Bench and Bar ... that the language we use in this appellate opinion may not be adopted uncritically for purposes of jury instruction. 1995This point was made in In re Wood's Estate, 374 Mich. 278, 292 , 132 N.W.2d 35, 45 (1965), overruled on other grounds, Widmayer v. Leonard, 422 Mich. 280 , 373 N.W.2d 538 (1985): "[W]e caution Bench and Bar ... that the language we use in this appellate opinion may not be adopted uncritically for purposes of jury instruction. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Ritchie v. Armentrout
neutral
1 sentence1944Ritchie v. Armentrout, 124 W. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Hoover-Dimeling Lumber Co. v. Neill
neutral
1 sentence1937Hoover-Dimeling Lumber Co. v. Neill, 77 W. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
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.