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 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lillygreen2 sentences2022Va. 595, 600 , 461 S.E.2d 101, 106 (1995), this Court explained the two- tier standard of review of a circuit court’s ruling on a motion to suppress: [W]e first review a circuit court’s findings of fact when ruling on a motion to suppress evidence under the clearly erroneous standard. 2015In State v. Lilly, 194 W.Va. 595, 600 , 461 S.E.2d 101, 106 (1995), this Court explained that the standard of review of a circuit court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is a two-tier standard: we first review a circuit court’s findings of fact when ruling on a motion to suppress evidence under the clearly erroneous standard. | 4 | 9 |
State v. Farleygreen2 sentences1995See State v. Farley, 192 W.Va. 247 , 452 S.E.2d 50 (1994) (discussing at length the standard of review in a suppression determination). [4] By employing a two-tier standard, we first review a circuit court's findings of fact when ruling on a motion to suppress evidence under the clearly erroneous standard. 1995See State v. Farley, 192 W.Va. 247 , 452 S.E.2d 50 (1994) (discussing at length the standard of review in a suppression determination). [4] By employing a two-tier standard, we first review a circuit court's findings of fact when ruling on a motion to suppress evidence under the clearly erroneous standard. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Interest of Tiffany Marie S.
green
2 sentences2022Pt. 1, In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223 , 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996). 3 not enjoy the same statutory right of participation as is extended to parents and pre-petition custodians.’” 6 Those in the second tier granted the meaningful opportunity to be heard are foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers. 7 Importantly, in advancing the position that she was entitled to intervene in the proceedings, or that she was entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard, Petitioner has not attempted to couch her argument in the terms of West Virginia Code § 49-4-601(e) or (h). 2022Pt. 1, In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223 , 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996). 3 not enjoy the same statutory right of participation as is extended to parents and pre-petition custodians.’” 6 Those in the second tier granted the meaningful opportunity to be heard are foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers. 7 Importantly, in advancing the position that she was entitled to intervene in the proceedings, or that she was entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard, Petitioner has not attempted to couch her argument in the terms of West Virginia Code § 49-4-601(e) or (h). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.