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.
11 Virgin Islands opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virgin Islands 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 |
|---|---|---|
Joseph v. Bureau of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2017Ct. 2016) (observing that courts must determine what claims are presented and what law governs since the law determines what facts are relevant); Carlos Warehouse, 64 V.I. at 198 n.8 (noting that parties are without counsel in small claims cases, and many defenses are deemed waived if not raised, and concluding that the prudent course is for courts to elicit affirmative defenses first before attempting to settle the case); see also In re: Moorhead v. Mapp, 62 V.I. 595 , 601 n.6 (V.I. 2015) (“[W]hen a document has been filed by a pro se litigant ... the Superior Court is required to apply a mor 2015Joseph v. Bureau of Corr., 54 V.I. 644, 650 (V.I. 2011). | 2 | 2 |
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblygreen2 sentences2025Mills-Williams v. Mapp, 67 V.I. 574, 585 (V.I. 2017); see also Metivier v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 77 V.I. 602 , 610 (V.I. 2023) (observing that in Mills-Williams, this Court “hold[s] that the inclusion of language in Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure 8 identifying the Virgin Islands as ‘a notice pleading jurisdiction’ evidence[s] an intent to reject the heightened pleading standard of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), even when Virgin Islands Rule 8 was otherwise nearly word-for-word identical to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).” ¶ 18 When ruling on a Ru 2017Legal Standard for Motion to Dismiss In her appellate brief, Mills-Williams maintains that the Superior Court committed error when it applied the heightened pleading standard of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 , 127 S. Ct. 1955 , 167 L. | 1 | 4 |
Mills-Williams v. Mappgreen1 sentence2025Mills-Williams v. Mapp, 67 V.I. 574, 585 (V.I. 2017); see also Metivier v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 77 V.I. 602 , 610 (V.I. 2023) (observing that in Mills-Williams, this Court “hold[s] that the inclusion of language in Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure 8 identifying the Virgin Islands as ‘a notice pleading jurisdiction’ evidence[s] an intent to reject the heightened pleading standard of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), even when Virgin Islands Rule 8 was otherwise nearly word-for-word identical to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).” ¶ 18 When ruling on a Ru | 1 | 1 |
Ahmed v. Rosenblattgreen1 sentence2017Ct. 2016) (observing that courts must determine what claims are presented and what law governs since the law determines what facts are relevant); Carlos Warehouse, 64 V.I. at 198 n.8 (noting that parties are without counsel in small claims cases, and many defenses are deemed waived if not raised, and concluding that the prudent course is for courts to elicit affirmative defenses first before attempting to settle the case); see also In re: Moorhead v. Mapp, 62 V.I. 595 , 601 n.6 (V.I. 2015) (“[W]hen a document has been filed by a pro se litigant ... the Superior Court is required to apply a mor | 1 | 1 |
Collazo-Perez v. Puerto Ricogreen1 sentence2017Ct. 2016) (observing that courts must determine what claims are presented and what law governs since the law determines what facts are relevant); Carlos Warehouse, 64 V.I. at 198 n.8 (noting that parties are without counsel in small claims cases, and many defenses are deemed waived if not raised, and concluding that the prudent course is for courts to elicit affirmative defenses first before attempting to settle the case); see also In re: Moorhead v. Mapp, 62 V.I. 595 , 601 n.6 (V.I. 2015) (“[W]hen a document has been filed by a pro se litigant ... the Superior Court is required to apply a mor | 1 | 1 |
Creque v. Roebuckgreen1 sentence2017Creque v. Roebuck. 1979 V.I. | 1 | 1 |
Sweeney v. Ombresgreen1 sentence2017Gerace v. Bentley, 65 V.I. 289, 304-05 (V.I. 2016); Sweeney v. Ombres, 60 V.I. 438, 442 (VI. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Gerace v. Bentleygreen1 sentence2017Gerace v. Bentley, 65 V.I. 289, 304-05 (V.I. 2016); Sweeney v. Ombres, 60 V.I. 438, 442 (VI. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. L.S. Holdings, Inc.green1 sentence2011See Jones v. LS Holding, 53 V.I. 48, 52 (V.I. | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. County of Alleghenygreen1 sentence2008Ulti mately, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that “[t]he Supreme Court’s Twombly formulation of the pleading standard can be summed up thus: ‘stating ... a claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest’ the required element.” Id. at 234. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virgin Islands. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Firstbank v. Harthman
green
1 sentence2025And we hold that FirstBank’s remaining arguments on the possession of the parcels and FirstBank’s Rule 50 motion are waived because FirstBank failed to fully brief these issues with citation to legal authority and argument We reverse the Superior Court’s November 2, 2021, opinion and order denying FirstBank’s Rule FirstBank P.R. v. Harthman Leasing 2025 VI 18 S. Ct. Civ. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Moorhead v. Mapp
green
1 sentence2017Ct. 2016) (observing that courts must determine what claims are presented and what law governs since the law determines what facts are relevant); Carlos Warehouse, 64 V.I. at 198 n.8 (noting that parties are without counsel in small claims cases, and many defenses are deemed waived if not raised, and concluding that the prudent course is for courts to elicit affirmative defenses first before attempting to settle the case); see also In re: Moorhead v. Mapp, 62 V.I. 595 , 601 n.6 (V.I. 2015) (“[W]hen a document has been filed by a pro se litigant ... the Superior Court is required to apply a mor | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Carlos Warehouse v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2017Ct. 2016) (observing that courts must determine what claims are presented and what law governs since the law determines what facts are relevant); Carlos Warehouse, 64 V.I. at 198 n.8 (noting that parties are without counsel in small claims cases, and many defenses are deemed waived if not raised, and concluding that the prudent course is for courts to elicit affirmative defenses first before attempting to settle the case); see also In re: Moorhead v. Mapp, 62 V.I. 595 , 601 n.6 (V.I. 2015) (“[W]hen a document has been filed by a pro se litigant ... the Superior Court is required to apply a mor | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Robles v. Hovensa, L.L.C.
green
1 sentence2016Robles, 49 V.I. at 500-01 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
green
1 sentence2011A court may then dismiss the complaint under Rule 8. 6 In essence, the new pleading standard requires complaints to contain more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ibqal, 556 U.S. at 678 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.