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 2004–2022 3 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. Millergreen2 sentences2021Without testimony 2 Petitioner does not allege that the circuit court committed plain error by granting the motion to suppress. 3 In addition, Syllabus Point 6 of State v. Miller, 194 W. 2016We have stated: “A litigant may not silently acquiesce to an alleged error, or actively contribute to such error, and then raise that error as a reason for reversal on 13 appeal.”22 In a similar case, State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3 , 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995), we rejected a defendant’s assertion that the circuit court committed plain error by failing to properly instruct the jury. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McKenzie v. Carroll International Corp.
green
2 sentences2010Specifically, Appellant alleges that the circuit court committed plain error in excluding any evidence and testimony regarding Alfred Nelson because the evidence was clearly admissible pursuant to this Court’s prior decision in McKenzie v. Carroll International Corp., 216 W.Va. 686 , 610 S.E.2d 341 (2004). 2010Specifically, Appellant alleges that the circuit court committed plain error in excluding any evidence and testimony regarding Alfred Nelson because the evidence was clearly admissible pursuant to this Court’s prior decision in McKenzie v. Carroll International Corp., 216 W.Va. 686 , 610 S.E.2d 341 (2004). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Hutchinson v. Dietrich
green
1 sentence2022Va. 202 , 332 S.E.2d 164 (1985), and Hutchinson v. Dietrich, 183 W. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Turner v. Holland
green
2 sentences2022On appeal, petitioner first argues that the circuit court committed plain error by separately enhancing two of his three sentences under West Virginia Code § 60A-4-408, absent express language in § 60A-4-408 authorizing separate sentence enhancements for convictions rendered against a defendant on the same date and in the same proceeding as required by Turner v. Holland, 2 175 W. 2022Va. 202 , 332 S.E.2d 164 (1985), and Hutchinson v. Dietrich, 183 W. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Lucas
green
2 sentences2020This Court reviews sentencing orders “‘under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.’ Syllabus Point 1, [in part,] State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271 , 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997).” Syl. 2020This Court reviews sentencing orders “‘under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.’ Syllabus Point 1, [in part,] State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271 , 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997).” Syl. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Blessing
green
1 sentence2019Petitioner concedes that there was no objection to the State’s introduction or continued use of Exhibit 1 but is critical of the circuit court’s failure to sua sponte reject the admission of that 175 W. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Mayles v. Shoney's, Inc.
green
2 sentences2004With those standards in mind, Mr. Keesee argues that the circuit court committed plain error in giving the jury an instruction on the history of the deliberate intent statute based upon this Court’s decision in Mayles v. Shoney’s, Inc., 185 W.Va. 88 , 405 S.E.2d 15 (1990). 2004With those standards in mind, Mr. Keesee argues that the circuit court committed plain error in giving the jury an instruction on the history of the deliberate intent statute based upon this Court’s decision in Mayles v. Shoney’s, Inc., 185 W.Va. 88 , 405 S.E.2d 15 (1990). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.