reliability requirement in West Virginia

12 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2024 2 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.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green scotus · 1993 · cited in 6 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1995–2024 2 sentences 2024“The first and universal requirement for the admissibility of scientific evidence is that the evidence must be both ‘reliable’ and ‘relevant.’ Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39 , 443 S.E.2d 196 (1993), cert denied, 511 U.S. 1129 , 114 S. Ct. 2137 , 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994), the reliability requirement is met only by a finding by the trial court under Rule 104(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence that the scientific or technical theory which is the basis for the test results is indeed 2024“The first and universal requirement for the admissibility of scientific evidence is that the evidence must be both ‘reliable’ and ‘relevant.’ Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39 , 443 S.E.2d 196 (1993), cert denied, 511 U.S. 1129 , 114 S. Ct. 2137 , 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994), the reliability requirement is met only by a finding by the trial court under Rule 104(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence that the scientific or technical theory which is the basis for the test results is indeed	1	6
Goebel v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroadgreen ca10 · 2000 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024It is well understood that a court “need not ‘recite the Daubert standard as though it were some magical incantation,’ . . . or apply all of the reliability factors[.]” Goebel, 215 F.3d at 1088 (citations omitted).	1	1
Norris v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.green ca10 · 2005 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007See also Norris v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 397 F.3d 878, 883 (10th Cir.2005) (“We review de novo whether the district court applied the proper standard in determining whether to admit or exclude expert testimony.”). 2007See also Norris v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 397 F.3d 878, 883 (10th Cir.2005) ("We review de novo whether the district court applied the proper standard in determining whether to admit or exclude expert testimony.").	1	1
State v. Doriguzzigreen njsuperctappdiv · 2000 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See also Graves v. State, 761 So.2d 950, 953 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (an officer could testify about doing an HGN evaluation only to show probable cause to arrest a defendant and administer a breathalyzer, rather than for the impermissible purpose of indicating that HGN evidence was scientific evidence proving intoxication or impairment). [4] Recently, in State v. Doriguzzi, 334 N.J.Super. 530 , 760 A.2d 336 (2000), the court held that HGN evidence is scientific evidence that must be shown to meet a reliability standard before it may be admitted. 2002See also Graves v. State, 761 So.2d 950, 953 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (an officer could testify about doing an HGN evaluation only to show probable cause to arrest a defendant and administer a breathalyzer, rather than for the impermissible purpose of indicating that HGN evidence was scientific evidence proving intoxication or impairment). [4] Recently, in State v. Doriguzzi, 334 N.J.Super. 530 , 760 A.2d 336 (2000), the court held that HGN evidence is scientific evidence that must be shown to meet a reliability standard before it may be admitted.	1	1
Graves v. Stategreen missctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See also Graves v. State, 761 So.2d 950, 953 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (an officer could testify about doing an HGN evaluation only to show probable cause to arrest a defendant and administer a breathalyzer, rather than for the impermissible purpose of indicating that HGN evidence was scientific evidence proving intoxication or impairment). [4] Recently, in State v. Doriguzzi, 334 N.J.Super. 530 , 760 A.2d 336 (2000), the court held that HGN evidence is scientific evidence that must be shown to meet a reliability standard before it may be admitted. 2002See also Graves v. State, 761 So.2d 950, 953 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (an officer could testify about doing an HGN evaluation only to show probable cause to arrest a defendant and administer a breathalyzer, rather than for the impermissible purpose of indicating that HGN evidence was scientific evidence proving intoxication or impairment). 4 Recently, in State v. Doriguzzi, 334 N.J.Super. 530 , 760 A.2d 336 (2000), the court held that HGN evidence is scientific evidence that must be shown to meet a reliability standard before it may be admitted.	1	1
State v. Beardgreen wva · 1995 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995In note 5 of State v. Beard, 194 W.Va. 740, 746 , 461 S.E.2d 486, 492 (1995), a seminal opinion by Justice Workman, we stated: “The first and universal requirement for the admissibility of scientific evidence is that the evidence must be both ‘reliable’ and ‘relevant.’ Under Daubert/Wilt, the reliability requirement is met only by a finding by the trial court under Rule 104(a) that the scientific or technical theory which is the basis for the test results is indeed ‘scientific, technical, or ... specialized knowledge.’ The trial court’s determination regarding whether the scientific evidence i 1995In note 5 of State v. Beard, 194 W.Va. 740, 746 , 461 S.E.2d 486, 492 (1995), a seminal opinion by Justice Workman, we stated: “The first and universal requirement for the admissibility of scientific evidence is that the evidence must be both ‘reliable’ and ‘relevant.’ Under Daubert/Wilt, the reliability requirement is met only by a finding by the trial court under Rule 104(a) that the scientific or technical theory which is the basis for the test results is indeed ‘scientific, technical, or ... specialized knowledge.’ The trial court’s determination regarding whether the scientific evidence i	1	1
United States v. Michael Popenasgreen ca6 · 1985 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990 1 sentence 1990See United States v. Popenas, 780 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1985); State v. Horsley, 117 Idaho 920 , 792 P.2d 945 (1990); State v. Brown, 341 N.W.2d 10 (Iowa 1983); State v. Carver, 380 N.W.2d 821 (Minn.App.1986); Cummins v. State, supra; State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76 , 337 S.E.2d 833 (1985); State v. Nelson, 777 P.2d 479 (Utah 1989).	1	1
State v. Woodallgreen wva · 1989 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990 1 sentence 1990See Syllabus Point 3, State v. Woodall, supra ; State v. Clawson, 165 W.Va. at 620 , 270 S.E.2d at 677-78 . [20] Syllabus Point 5 of State v. Smith states: "The language of Rule 804(b)(5) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence and its counterpart in Rule 803(24) requires that five general factors must be met in order for hearsay evidence to be admissible under the rules.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
Employers Underwriters, Inc. v. Weaver green scotus · 1994 2 sentences 2024“The first and universal requirement for the admissibility of scientific evidence is that the evidence must be both ‘reliable’ and ‘relevant.’ Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39 , 443 S.E.2d 196 (1993), cert denied, 511 U.S. 1129 , 114 S. Ct. 2137 , 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994), the reliability requirement is met only by a finding by the trial court under Rule 104(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence that the scientific or technical theory which is the basis for the test results is indeed 2007The initial inquiry regarding admissibility is whether the proffered testimony is both reliable and relevant: The first and universal requirement for the admissibility of scientific evidence is that the evidence must be both "reliable" and "relevant." Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39 , 443 S.E.2d 196 (1993), cert. denied, [511] U.S. [1129], 114 S.Ct. 2137 , 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994), the reliability requirement is met only by a finding by the trial court under Rule 104(a) of the West Virg	5	1996–2024
Uberoi v. University of Colorado green scotus · 1994 2 sentences 2024“The first and universal requirement for the admissibility of scientific evidence is that the evidence must be both ‘reliable’ and ‘relevant.’ Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39 , 443 S.E.2d 196 (1993), cert denied, 511 U.S. 1129 , 114 S. Ct. 2137 , 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994), the reliability requirement is met only by a finding by the trial court under Rule 104(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence that the scientific or technical theory which is the basis for the test results is indeed 2007The initial inquiry regarding admissibility is whether the proffered testimony is both reliable and relevant: The first and universal requirement for the admissibility of scientific evidence is that the evidence must be both "reliable" and "relevant." Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39 , 443 S.E.2d 196 (1993), cert. denied, [511] U.S. [1129], 114 S.Ct. 2137 , 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994), the reliability requirement is met only by a finding by the trial court under Rule 104(a) of the West Virg	5	1996–2024
Wilt v. Buracker green wva · 1994 2 sentences 2024“The first and universal requirement for the admissibility of scientific evidence is that the evidence must be both ‘reliable’ and ‘relevant.’ Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39 , 443 S.E.2d 196 (1993), cert denied, 511 U.S. 1129 , 114 S. Ct. 2137 , 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994), the reliability requirement is met only by a finding by the trial court under Rule 104(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence that the scientific or technical theory which is the basis for the test results is indeed 2024“The first and universal requirement for the admissibility of scientific evidence is that the evidence must be both ‘reliable’ and ‘relevant.’ Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39 , 443 S.E.2d 196 (1993), cert denied, 511 U.S. 1129 , 114 S. Ct. 2137 , 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994), the reliability requirement is met only by a finding by the trial court under Rule 104(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence that the scientific or technical theory which is the basis for the test results is indeed	5	1996–2024
Davies v. United States green scotus · 1994 2 sentences 2024“The first and universal requirement for the admissibility of scientific evidence is that the evidence must be both ‘reliable’ and ‘relevant.’ Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39 , 443 S.E.2d 196 (1993), cert denied, 511 U.S. 1129 , 114 S. Ct. 2137 , 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994), the reliability requirement is met only by a finding by the trial court under Rule 104(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence that the scientific or technical theory which is the basis for the test results is indeed 1996In its entirety, Syl. pt. 3 of Gentry v. Mangum, states: The first and universal requirement for the admissibility of scientific evidence is that the evidence must be both “reliable” and “relevant.” Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., [506] U.S. [579], 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39 , 443 S.E.2d 196 (1993), cert denied, 511 U.S. 1129 , 114 S.Ct. 2137 , 128 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994), the reliability requirement is met *67 only by a finding by the trial court under Rule 104(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence that the scientific or tech	2	1996–2024
Gentry v. Mangum green wva · 1995 2 sentences 2015In syllabus point three of Gentry, 195 W.Va. 512 , 466 S.E.2d 171 , we stated: The first and universal requirement for the admissibility of scientific evidence is that the evidence must be both ‘reliable’ and ‘relevant.’ Under DaubertfWilt, the reliability requirement is met only by a finding by the trial court under Rule 104(a) that the scientific or technical theory which is the basis for the test results is indeed ‘scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge.’ The trial court’s determination regarding whether the scientific evidence is properly the subject .of‘scientific, technical, or 2015In syllabus point three of Gentry, 195 W.Va. 512 , 466 S.E.2d 171 , we stated: The first and universal requirement for the admissibility of scientific evidence is that the evidence must be both ‘reliable’ and ‘relevant.’ Under DaubertfWilt, the reliability requirement is met only by a finding by the trial court under Rule 104(a) that the scientific or technical theory which is the basis for the test results is indeed ‘scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge.’ The trial court’s determination regarding whether the scientific evidence is properly the subject .of‘scientific, technical, or	1	2015–2015
State v. Carver green minnctapp · 1986 1 sentence 1990See United States v. Popenas, 780 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1985); State v. Horsley, 117 Idaho 920 , 792 P.2d 945 (1990); State v. Brown, 341 N.W.2d 10 (Iowa 1983); State v. Carver, 380 N.W.2d 821 (Minn.App.1986); Cummins v. State, supra; State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76 , 337 S.E.2d 833 (1985); State v. Nelson, 777 P.2d 479 (Utah 1989).	1	1990–1990
State v. Nelson green utah · 1989 1 sentence 1990See United States v. Popenas, 780 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1985); State v. Horsley, 117 Idaho 920 , 792 P.2d 945 (1990); State v. Brown, 341 N.W.2d 10 (Iowa 1983); State v. Carver, 380 N.W.2d 821 (Minn.App.1986); Cummins v. State, supra; State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76 , 337 S.E.2d 833 (1985); State v. Nelson, 777 P.2d 479 (Utah 1989).	1	1990–1990
State v. Smith green nc · 1985 2 sentences 1990See United States v. Popenas, 780 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1985); State v. Horsley, 117 Idaho 920 , 792 P.2d 945 (1990); State v. Brown, 341 N.W.2d 10 (Iowa 1983); State v. Carver, 380 N.W.2d 821 (Minn.App.1986); Cummins v. State, supra; State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76 , 337 S.E.2d 833 (1985); State v. Nelson, 777 P.2d 479 (Utah 1989). 1990See United States v. Popenas, 780 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1985); State v. Horsley, 117 Idaho 920 , 792 P.2d 945 (1990); State v. Brown, 341 N.W.2d 10 (Iowa 1983); State v. Carver, 380 N.W.2d 821 (Minn.App.1986); Cummins v. State, supra; State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76 , 337 S.E.2d 833 (1985); State v. Nelson, 777 P.2d 479 (Utah 1989).	1	1990–1990
State v. Horsley green idaho · 1990 2 sentences 1990See United States v. Popenas, 780 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1985); State v. Horsley, 117 Idaho 920 , 792 P.2d 945 (1990); State v. Brown, 341 N.W.2d 10 (Iowa 1983); State v. Carver, 380 N.W.2d 821 (Minn.App.1986); Cummins v. State, supra; State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76 , 337 S.E.2d 833 (1985); State v. Nelson, 777 P.2d 479 (Utah 1989). 1990See United States v. Popenas, 780 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1985); State v. Horsley, 117 Idaho 920 , 792 P.2d 945 (1990); State v. Brown, 341 N.W.2d 10 (Iowa 1983); State v. Carver, 380 N.W.2d 821 (Minn.App.1986); Cummins v. State, supra; State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76 , 337 S.E.2d 833 (1985); State v. Nelson, 777 P.2d 479 (Utah 1989).	1	1990–1990
State v. Clawson green wva · 1980 2 sentences 1990See Syllabus Point 3, State v. Woodall, supra ; State v. Clawson, 165 W.Va. at 620 , 270 S.E.2d at 677-78 . [20] Syllabus Point 5 of State v. Smith states: "The language of Rule 804(b)(5) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence and its counterpart in Rule 803(24) requires that five general factors must be met in order for hearsay evidence to be admissible under the rules. 1990See Syllabus Point 3, State v. Woodall, supra ; State v. Clawson, 165 W.Va. at 620 , 270 S.E.2d at 677-78 . [20] Syllabus Point 5 of State v. Smith states: "The language of Rule 804(b)(5) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence and its counterpart in Rule 803(24) requires that five general factors must be met in order for hearsay evidence to be admissible under the rules.	1	1990–1990
State v. Brown green iowa · 1983 1 sentence 1990See United States v. Popenas, 780 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1985); State v. Horsley, 117 Idaho 920 , 792 P.2d 945 (1990); State v. Brown, 341 N.W.2d 10 (Iowa 1983); State v. Carver, 380 N.W.2d 821 (Minn.App.1986); Cummins v. State, supra; State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76 , 337 S.E.2d 833 (1985); State v. Nelson, 777 P.2d 479 (Utah 1989).	1	1990–1990

Where else courts name it

TX 398 (1993–2026) OH 82 (1981–2026) IL 82 (1972–2025) CA 64 (1958–2026) NC 60 (1985–2025) NY 54 (1977–2025) WA 54 (1987–2025) MA 41 (1975–2023) FL 40 (1983–2026) TN 37 (1983–2026) CO 37 (1990–2026) VA 34 (1970–2025) MD 32 (1971–2025) NJ 31 (1987–2024) IN 30 (1969–2020) MN 30 (1977–2019) CT 29 (1977–2025) KS 27 (1978–2025) NM 26 (1975–2025) AL 24 (1980–2016) MI 23 (1980–2026) WI 22 (1980–2025) UT 22 (1994–2025) MS 22 (2001–2020) ID 18 (1984–2026) SC 18 (1993–2024) MO 17 (1978–2021) GA 16 (1982–2025) HI 16 (1996–2021) LA 15 (1979–2026) AZ 14 (1975–2024) DC 13 (1977–2025) IA 13 (1979–2022) PA 12 (1981–2025) WV 12 (1990–2024) NH 11 (1967–2024) DE 11 (1996–2025) MT 10 (1994–2019) OR 8 (1982–2022) AK 6 (1979–1996) OK 6 (1991–2019) NE 6 (1994–2022) ME 6 (1979–2026) WY 6 (1993–2025) SD 6 (1936–2022) AR 4 (1981–2026) VT 4 (2000–2024) KY 4 (2006–2019) VI 4 (1999–2016) RI 3 (1989–1999) NV 2 (2005–2013)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check