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.
9 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jefferson County Board of Education v. Jefferson County Education Ass'ngreen2 sentences2020Ass’n, 183 W. 2018Ass’n, 183 W. | 4 | 6 |
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Kenneth Dale Bradley, Samuel L. Collinsgreen2 sentences2017Ass’n, 183 W.Va. 15, 24 , 393 S.E.2d 653, 662 (1990) (quoting Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Bradley, 756 F.2d 1048, 1054 (4th Cir.1985))[.]15 In Jefferson County, we stated that courts must consider these factors in “flexible interplay” when determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, which seems to suggest a movant must make a showing on all factors and the court has discretion in weighing them. 16 While the factors set forth in Jefferson County have 15 State ex rel. 2017Ass’n, 183 W.Va. 15, 24 , 393 S.E.2d 653, 662 (1990) (quoting Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Bradley, 756 F.2d 1048, 1054 (4th Cir.1985))[.] 15 In Jefferson Countyj we stated that courts must consider these factors in “flexible interplay” when determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, which seems to suggest a movant must make a showing on all factors and the court has discretion in weighing them. 16 While the factors set forth in Jefferson County have become the apparent standard in West Virginia, we have not adopted them in a syllabus point, Because the preliminar | 4 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. McGraw v. Imperial Marketing
green
2 sentences1996This Court noted in State v. Imperial Marketing, 196 W.Va. 346 , 352 n. 8, 472 S.E.2d 792 , 798 n. 8 (1996) that [t]he customary standard applied in West Virginia for issuing a preliminary injunction is that a party seeking the temporary relief must demonstrate by a clear showing of a reasonable likelihood of the presence of irreparable harm; the absence of any other appropriate remedy at law; and the necessity of a balancing of hardship test[J (citing Jefferson County Bd. of Educ. v. Jefferson County Educ. 1996This Court noted in State v. Imperial Marketing, 196 W.Va. 346 , 352 n. 8, 472 S.E.2d 792 , 798 n. 8 (1996) that [t]he customary standard applied in West Virginia for issuing a preliminary injunction is that a party seeking the temporary relief must demonstrate by a clear showing of a reasonable likelihood of the presence of irreparable harm; the absence of any other appropriate remedy at law; and the necessity of a balancing of hardship test[J (citing Jefferson County Bd. of Educ. v. Jefferson County Educ. | 3 | 1996–2023 |
Severt v. Beckley Coals, Inc.
green
2 sentences1990We recognized the necessity of a balancing of hardship test in Syllabus Point 2 of Severt v. Beckley Coals, Inc., 153 W.Va. 600 , 170 S.E.2d 577 (1969): “ ‘The granting or refusal of an injunction, whether mandatory or preventive, calls for the exercise of sound judicial discretion in view of all the circumstances of the particular case; regard being had to the nature of the controversy, the object for which the injunction is being sought, and the comparative hardship or convenience to the respective parties involved in the award or denial of the writ.’ Point 4, syllabus, State ex rel. 1990We recognized the necessity of a balancing of hardship test in Syllabus Point 2 of Severt v. Beckley Coals, Inc., 153 W.Va. 600 , 170 S.E.2d 577 (1969): “ ‘The granting or refusal of an injunction, whether mandatory or preventive, calls for the exercise of sound judicial discretion in view of all the circumstances of the particular case; regard being had to the nature of the controversy, the object for which the injunction is being sought, and the comparative hardship or convenience to the respective parties involved in the award or denial of the writ.’ Point 4, syllabus, State ex rel. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State Ex Rel. Donley v. Baker
neutral
2 sentences1990Donley v. Baker, 112 W.Va. 263 [ 164 S.E. 154 (1932)].” A similar test has evolved in the federal courts, as seen from the following passage from Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Bradley, 756 F.2d 1048, 1054 (4th Cir.1985): “Under the balance of hardship test the district court must consider, in ‘flexible interplay,’ the following four factors in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction: (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiff without the injunction; (2) the likelihood of harm to the defendant with an injunction; (3) the plaintiff’s likelihood of succ 1990Donley v. Baker, 112 W.Va. 263 [ 164 S.E. 154 (1932)].” A similar test has evolved in the federal courts, as seen from the following passage from Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Bradley, 756 F.2d 1048, 1054 (4th Cir.1985): “Under the balance of hardship test the district court must consider, in ‘flexible interplay,’ the following four factors in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction: (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiff without the injunction; (2) the likelihood of harm to the defendant with an injunction; (3) the plaintiff’s likelihood of succ | 1 | 1990–1990 |