1,906 West Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 363 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc.green2 sentences2025Va. 97, 104 , 459 S.E.2d 374, 381 (1995), the SCAWV noted that “[a]s a general proposition, we review a circuit court’s rulings on a motion for a new trial under an abuse of discretion standard.” (citation omitted). 2025Va. 97, 104 , 459 S.E.2d 374, 381 (1995) (“we review a circuit court's ruling on a motion for a new trial under an abuse of discretion standard.”). | 44 | 83 |
State v. Rodoussakisgreen2 sentences2026“A trial court’s evidentiary rulings, as well as its application of the Rules of Evidence, are subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard.” Syllabus Point 4, State v. Rodoussakis, 204 W. 2026Va. 58 , 511 S.E.2d 469 (1998) (“A trial court’s evidentiary rulings, as well as its application of the Rules of Evidence, are subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard.”). 9 With respect to the petitioner’s claim that the circuit court erred in denying her motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, we have held that [i]n reviewing challenges to findings and rulings made by a circuit court, we apply a two-pronged deferential standard of review. | 28 | 179 |
State v. Guthriegreen2 sentences2023Touching on one of these exceptions, we have acknowledged that “[a]lthough most rulings of a trial court regarding the admission of evidence are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, . . . an appellate court reviews de novo the legal analysis underlying a trial court’s decision.” State v. Guthrie, 194 W. 2023However, “when an objection to a jury instruction involves the trial court’s expression and formulation of the jury charge, this Court will review under an abuse of discretion standard.” Id. [W]e review jury instructions to determine whether, taken as a whole and in light of the evidence, they mislead the jury or state the law incorrectly to the prejudice of the objecting party. | 19 | 26 |
West v. National Mines Corp.green2 sentences2023We review the final order granting the temporary injunction and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard, West v. National Mines Corp., 168 W.Va. 578, 590 , 285 S.E.2d 670, 678 (1981), we review the circuit court’s underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard, and we review questions of law de novo. 2023We review the final order granting the temporary injunction and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard, West v. National Mines Corp., 168 W.Va. 578, 590 , 285 S.E.2d 670, 678 (1981), we review the circuit court’s underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard, and we review questions of law de novo. | 19 | 19 |
Sanson v. Brandywine Homes, Inc.green2 sentences2021Va. 307, 310 , 599 S.E.2d 730, 733 (2004) (“We . . . apply the abuse of discretion standard of review to an award of attorneys’ fees.”). 2020See also Sanson v. Brandywine Homes, Inc., 215 W.Va. 307, 310 , 599 S.E.2d 730, 733 (2004) (“We . . . apply the abuse of discretion standard of review to an award of attorney’s fees.”); Syl. pt. 2, Daily Gazette Co., Inc. v. West Virginia Dev. | 15 | 15 |
State v. Marplegreen2 sentences2023Va. 47, 51 , 475 S.E.2d 47, 51 (1996) (“The evidentiary rulings of a circuit court . . . are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.”). 2021We have further recognized that “[i]t is well settled that a trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, ‘including those affecting constitutional rights, are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.’” State v. Kaufman, 227 W.Va. 537, 548 , 711 S.E.2d 607, 618 (2011) (citing State v. Marple, 197 W.Va. 47, 51 , 475 S.E.2d 47, 51 (1996)). 4 State v. David K., 238 W. | 15 | 15 |
Gribben v. Kirkgreen2 sentences2024Va. 488, 500 , 466 S.E.2d 147, 159 (1995) (“Under the abuse of discretion standard, we will not disturb a circuit court’s decision unless Mr. Dement and J.B.’s incriminating statements were eventually recanted, there is evidence supporting the veracity of these statements, such as the fact that Mr. Dement’s first confessions to family members were largely consistent with his initial confessions to law enforcement. 2017Our standard of review for an award of prejudgment interest was set forth in Gribben, et al v. Kirk, 195 W.Va. 488, 500 , 466 S.E.2d 147, 159 (1995), in which this Court provided: In reviewing a circuit court’s award of prejudgment interest, we usually apply an abuse of discretion standard. | 14 | 17 |
Caruso v. Pearcegreen2 sentences2026Va. 544, 547 , 678 S.E.2d 50, 53 (2009) (“We review a circuit court’s order dismissing a case for inactivity pursuant to Rule 41(b) under an abuse of discretion standard.”). 2025On appeal, “[w]e review a circuit court's order dismissing a case for inactivity pursuant to Rule 41(b) under an abuse of discretion standard.” Caruso v. Pearce, 223 W. | 13 | 15 |
McDougal v. McCammongreen2 sentences2025Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995), that “[w]here the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Additionally, “[a]bsent a few exceptions, this Court will review evidentiary and procedural rulings of the circuit court under an abuse of discretion standard.” Syl Pt. 1, in part, McDougal v. McCammon, 193 W. 2023Absent a few exceptions, this Court will review evidentiary . . . rulings of the circuit court under an abuse of discretion standard.’ Syllabus Point 1, in part, McDougal v. McCammon, 193 W.Va. 229 , 455 S.E.2d 788 (1995).” Syl. | 12 | 92 |
State v. Lowerygreen2 sentences2026We have indicated that “[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion for mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Lowery, 222 W. 2026This Court has held: “The decision to grant or deny a motion for mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Lowery, 222 W. | 12 | 18 |
| Wells v. KEY COMMUNICATIONS, LLCgreen | 11 | 12 |
| Hensley v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resourcesgreen | 11 | 12 |
Gentry v. Mangumgreen2 sentences2005In Gribben v. Kirk, 195 W.Va. 488 , 466 S.E.2d 147 (1995), this Court explained the abuse of discretion standard as follows: "Under the abuse of discretion standard, we will not disturb a circuit court's decision unless the circuit court makes a clear error of judgment or exceeds the bounds of permissible choices in the circumstances." 195 W.Va. at 500 , 466 S.E.2d at 159 ; see also Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W.Va. 512 , 520 n. 6, 466 S.E.2d 171 , 179 n. 6 (1995) ("In general, an abuse of discretion occurs when a material factor deserving significant weight is ignored, when an improper factor is re 2005In Gribben v. Kirk, 195 W.Va. 488 , 466 S.E.2d 147 (1995), this Court explained the abuse of discretion standard as follows: "Under the abuse of discretion standard, we will not disturb a circuit court's decision unless the circuit court makes a clear error of judgment or exceeds the bounds of permissible choices in the circumstances." 195 W.Va. at 500 , 466 S.E.2d at 159 ; see also Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W.Va. 512 , 520 n. 6, 466 S.E.2d 171 , 179 n. 6 (1995) ("In general, an abuse of discretion occurs when a material factor deserving significant weight is ignored, when an improper factor is re | 10 | 14 |
Phillips v. Foxgreen2 sentences1999As indicated in Phillips v. Fox, 193 W.Va. 657 , 458 S.E.2d 327 (1995), the final order and the ultimate disposition in such a circumstance should be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. 1999As indicated in Phillips v. Fox, 193 W.Va. 657 , 458 S.E.2d 327 (1995), the final order and the ultimate disposition in such a circumstance should be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. | 10 | 14 |
| State v. Loukgreen | 10 | 10 |
Carr v. Hancockgreen2 sentences2026Va. 474 , 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004) (“In reviewing a final order entered by a circuit court judge upon a review of, or upon a refusal to review, a final order of a family court judge, we review the findings of fact made by the family court judge under the clearly erroneous standard, and the application of law to the facts under an abuse of discretion standard. 2022This principle is encompassed in our standard of review for family law cases: “we review the findings of fact made by the family court judge under the clearly erroneous standard, and the application of law to the facts under an abuse of discretion standard.” Syl., in part, Carr v. Hancock, 216 W. | 9 | 126 |
State v. McGinnisgreen2 sentences2021Ultimately, “we review the trial court’s decision to admit evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. McGinnis, 193 W. 2020While Rule 404(b)(1) prohibits “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act . . . to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character[,]” Rule 404(b)(2) provides that “[t]his evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. . . .” This Court reviews “the trial court’s decision to admit evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) under an abuse of discretion standard.” McGinnis, 193 W. | 8 | 22 |
| Bartles v. Hinklegreen | 8 | 10 |
Burnside v. Burnsidegreen2 sentences2012We have previously held that “[a]b-sent a few exceptions, this Court will review evidentiary and procedural rulings of the circuit court under an abuse of discretion standard,” Syllabus Point 1, in part, McDougal v. McCammon, 193 W.Va. 229 , 455 S.E.2d 788 (1995), and that “questions of law and statutory interpretation are subject to de novo review.” Syllabus Point 1, Burnside v. Burnside, 194 W.Va. 263 , 460 S.E.2d 264 (1995). 2012We have previously held that “[a]b-sent a few exceptions, this Court will review evidentiary and procedural rulings of the circuit court under an abuse of discretion standard,” Syllabus Point 1, in part, McDougal v. McCammon, 193 W.Va. 229 , 455 S.E.2d 788 (1995), and that “questions of law and statutory interpretation are subject to de novo review.” Syllabus Point 1, Burnside v. Burnside, 194 W.Va. 263 , 460 S.E.2d 264 (1995). | 7 | 37 |
Mathena v. Hainesgreen2 sentences2026We review the final order and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard; the underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of law are subject to a de novo review.” Syllabus Point 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W. 2024We review the final order and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard; the underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of law are subject to a de novo review.” Syl. pt. 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417 , 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006). | 6 | 456 |
State v. Derrgreen2 sentences2024Va. 165, 168 , 451 S.E.2d 731, 734 (1994) (“Whether facts are sufficient to justify the delivery of a particular instruction is reviewed by this Court under an abuse of discretion standard.”). 2023Va. 165 , 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994). i 4. “‘The formulation of jury instructions is within the broad discretion of a circuit court, and a circuit court’s giving of an instruction is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. | 6 | 27 |
| State v. Peyattgreen | 6 | 12 |
| Burdette v. Burdette Realty Improvement, Inc.green | 6 | 7 |
| State v. Kaufmangreen | 6 | 7 |
| State v. Beardgreen | 6 | 6 |
| Beto v. Stewartgreen | 6 | 6 |
Burgess v. Porterfieldgreen2 sentences2026Va. 254 , 617 S.E.2d 801 (2005) cites Syllabus Point 4 of Burgess v. Porterfield, 196 W.Va. 178 , 469 S.E.2d 114 (1996) for the proposition that “[t]his Court reviews the circuit court’s final order and ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard. 2026Va. 254 , 617 S.E.2d 801 (2005) cites Syllabus Point 4 of Burgess v. Porterfield, 196 W.Va. 178 , 469 S.E.2d 114 (1996) for the proposition that “[t]his Court reviews the circuit court’s final order and ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard. | 5 | 136 |
| State v. Swimsgreen | 5 | 7 |
| State v. Wadegreen | 5 | 6 |
| Graham v. Wallacegreen | 5 | 5 |
| State v. Phillipsgreen | 5 | 5 |
| Banker v. Bankergreen | 4 | 11 |
| State v. Edward Charles L.green | 4 | 7 |
| DeVane v. Kennedygreen | 4 | 6 |
| State v. Thorntongreen | 4 | 5 |
| Reynolds v. City Hospital, Inc.green | 4 | 5 |
State v. Headgreen2 sentences2026We review the decision on the Rule 35 motion under an abuse of discretion standard; the underlying facts are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of law and interpretations of statutes and rules are subject to a de novo review.’ Syllabus point 1, State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298 , 480 S.E.2d 507 (1996).” Syl. 2026We review the decision on the Rule 35 motion under an abuse of discretion standard; the underlying facts are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of law and interpretations of statutes and rules are subject to a de novo review.’ Syllabus point 1, State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298 , 480 S.E.2d 507 (1996).” Syl. | 3 | 129 |
Carter v. Cartergreen2 sentences2024Va. 239 , 470 S.E.2d 193 (1996) (holding that an abuse of discretion standard applies to contempt rulings). 2024Va. 239 , 470 S.E.2d 193 (1996) (holding that an abuse of discretion standard applies to contempt rulings). | 3 | 19 |
| Riner v. Newbraughgreen | 3 | 8 |
| State v. Millergreen | 3 | 6 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Walker v. West Virginia Ethics Commission.
green
2 sentences2017Beaver urges application of the standard of review set forth in syllabus point two of Walker v. West Virginia Ethics Commission, 201 W.Va. 108 , 492 S.E.2d 167 (1997), which provides that the final order and ultimate disposition are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard, and questions of law are reviewed de novo. 10 Beaver also requests in its appellate brief that “this matter be referred to the Business Court Division for further development.” Under West Virginia Trial Court Rule 29.06, a party may seek to refer a matter to the bus 2017Beaver urges application of the standard of review set forth in syllabus point two of Walker v. West Virginia Ethics Commission, 201 W.Va. 108 , 492 S.E.2d 167 (1997), which provides that the final order and ultimate disposition are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard, and questions of law are reviewed de novo. 10 Beaver also requests in its appellate brief that “this matter be referred to the Business Court Division for further development.” Under West Virginia Trial Court Rule 29.06, a party may seek to refer a matter to the bus | 33 | 1999–2023 |
McCormick v. Allstate Insurance
green
2 sentences2023We review the final order and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard, and we review the circuit court’s underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard.” Syllabus Point 1, McCormick v. Allstate Insurance Co., 197 W.Va. 415 , 475 S.E.2d 507 (1996). 2023We review the final order and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard, and we review the circuit court’s underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard.” Syllabus Point 1, McCormick v. Allstate Insurance Co., 197 W.Va. 415 , 475 S.E.2d 507 (1996). | 27 | 1996–2026 |
State v. Vance
green
2 sentences2002In this regard, we stated in syllabus point 4 of State v. Rodoussakis, 204 W.Va. 58 , 511 S.E.2d 469 (1998), that “[a] trial court’s evidentiaiy rulings, as well as its application of the Rules of Evidence, are subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard.” We formulated a more concise standard of review applicable to the denial of a motion for new trial in syllabus point 8 of State v. Vance, 207 W.Va. 640 , 535 S.E.2d 484 (2000), as follows: In reviewing challenges to findings and rulings made by a circuit court, we apply a two-pronged deferential standard of review. 2002In this regard, we stated in syllabus point 4 of State v. Rodoussakis, 204 W.Va. 58 , 511 S.E.2d 469 (1998), that “[a] trial court’s evidentiaiy rulings, as well as its application of the Rules of Evidence, are subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard.” We formulated a more concise standard of review applicable to the denial of a motion for new trial in syllabus point 8 of State v. Vance, 207 W.Va. 640 , 535 S.E.2d 484 (2000), as follows: In reviewing challenges to findings and rulings made by a circuit court, we apply a two-pronged deferential standard of review. | 27 | 2002–2022 |
Perdue v. Coiner
green
2 sentences2022Pt. 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417 , 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006). .... “‘A court having jurisdiction over habeas corpus proceedings may deny a petition for a writ of habeas corpus without a hearing and without appointing counsel for the petitioner if the petition, exhibits, affidavits or other documentary evidence filed therewith show to such court’s satisfaction that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.’ Syllabus Point 1, Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W.Va. 467 , 194 7 The first ground for relief in petitioner’s instant habeas petition has six subparts. 2022Pt. 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417 , 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006). .... “‘A court having jurisdiction over habeas corpus proceedings may deny a petition for a writ of habeas corpus without a hearing and without appointing counsel for the petitioner if the petition, exhibits, affidavits or other documentary evidence filed therewith show to such court’s satisfaction that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.’ Syllabus Point 1, Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W.Va. 467 , 194 S.E.2d 657 (1973).” Syl. | 23 | 2016–2022 |
Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L.
green
2 sentences2025Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995), that “[w]here the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Additionally, “[a]bsent a few exceptions, this Court will review evidentiary and procedural rulings of the circuit court under an abuse of discretion standard.” Syl Pt. 1, in part, McDougal v. McCammon, 193 W. 2017Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995). 6 Finally, “[t]he decision to award or not to award attorneys’ fees rests in the sound discretion of the circuit court, and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal except in cases of abuse.” Beto v. Stewart, 213 W.Va. 355, 359 , 582 S.E.2d 802, 806 (2003); see also Sanson v. Brandywine Homes, Inc., 215 W.Va. 307, 310 , 599 S.E.2d 730, 733 (2004) (“We . . . apply the abuse of discretion standard of review to an award of attorneys’ fees.”). | 17 | 2001–2025 |
| Wells v. Key Communications, L.L.C. green | 13 | 2013–2026 |
| State Ex Rel. McGraw v. Imperial Marketing green | 12 | 2002–2023 |
| Nichols v. Nichols green | 11 | 1996–2020 |
| Bond v. Bond green | 10 | 2000–2021 |
| State v. White green | 10 | 2013–2018 |
| Daily Gazette Co. v. West Virginia Development Office green | 8 | 2011–2020 |
| Marriage of Staton v. Staton green | 8 | 2006–2010 |
| Ball v. Wills green | 7 | 2011–2020 |
| Cummings v. Cummings neutral | 7 | 2011–2020 |
| Lucas v. Lucas green | 6 | 2004–2022 |
| Strickland v. Washington green | 5 | 2014–2025 |
| Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp. v. Rice green | 5 | 2013–2025 |
| Perrine v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. green | 5 | 2013–2024 |
| Smith v. First Community Bancshares, Inc. green | 5 | 2003–2023 |
| In Re Tax Assessment of Foster Foundation's Woodlands Retirement Community green | 5 | 2013–2018 |
| State v. LARRY M. neutral | 5 | 2013–2018 |
| In Re S.W green | 4 | 2022–2026 |
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.