9 West Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hardwood Group v. Laroccogreen2 sentences2023Instead, the parties argue that this Court should treat the deputy’s decision as a default judgment order and apply the good cause analysis for setting aside such judgments as enumerated by our state’s highest court in Syllabus Points 4 and 5 of Hardwood Grp. v. LaRocco, 219 W. 2023Workforce argues that this Court should treat the deputy’s decision as a default judgment order and apply the good cause analysis for setting aside such judgments, as enumerated by our state’s highest court in Syllabus Points 4 and 5 of Hardwood Grp. v. LaRocco, 219 W. | 2 | 2 |
Shroades Ex Rel. Shroades v. Henrygreen2 sentences2011See Shroades, 187 W.Va. at 728 , 421 S.E.2d at 269 . 2011See Shroades, 187 W.Va. at 728 , 421 S.E.2d at 269 . | 2 | 2 |
Dolin v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2012In Dolin v. Roberts, 173 W.Va. 443, 446 , 317 S.E.2d 802, 805 (1984), we observed that due process concerns are raised when there are excessive and unreasonable delays in license suspension cases. 2012In Dolin v. Roberts, 173 W.Va. 443, 446 , 317 S.E.2d 802, 805 (1984), we observed that due process concerns are raised when there are excessive and unreasonable delays in license suspension cases. | 1 | 1 |
Tucker v. Stategreen1 sentence2006Therefore, the good cause exception of Rule 12(b)(2) has no application in this case. 20 In sum, “[a]s to the first point on appeal we [conclude] that [Tommy] may not now challenge his [adjudication and disposition] on the grounds that [the petition] fails to allege venue because he failed to raise the issue by pre-trial motion.” Tucker v. State, 417 So.2d 1006, 1009 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
White v. SWCC & Bethlehem Mines Corp.
green
1 sentence2022The majority acknowledges that “[t]he test to determine if the issue or cause of action involved in the two suits is identical is to inquire whether the same evidence 2 The lack of authority explains why there was not a full hearing on the issue of Mr. Perito’s petition for expungement and why there could not have been any decision on the merits because there was nothing to adjudicate. 7 would support both actions or issues.” White v. SWCC, 164 W. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Brady v. Board of Review
green
2 sentences2008Under Brady, when a claimant accepts a retirement incentive package, the claimant is disqualified for unemployment benefits unless the claimant can ... establish by “definitive objective facts,” (1) a well-grounded fear of “imminent layoff” and (2) that they “would suffer a substantial loss by not accepting early retirement.” Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 222 , 704 A.2d at 560 . 2008Under Brady, when a claimant accepts a retirement incentive package, the claimant is disqualified for unemployment benefits unless the claimant can ... establish by “definitive objective facts,” (1) a well-grounded fear of “imminent layoff” and (2) that they “would suffer a substantial loss by not accepting early retirement.” Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 222 , 704 A.2d at 560 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Sahlie
green
1 sentence1980United States v. Chavis, supra; United States v. Bass, supra; State v. Sahlie, supra; State v. McGhee, supra. For the foregoing reasons a moulded writ is issued to permit the trial court to conduct a good-cause hearing *420 for retention of experts in accordance with the standards set forth herein. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
United States v. Walter J. Chavis, Jr.
green
1 sentence1980United States v. Chavis, supra; United States v. Bass, supra; State v. Sahlie, supra; State v. McGhee, supra. For the foregoing reasons a moulded writ is issued to permit the trial court to conduct a good-cause hearing *420 for retention of experts in accordance with the standards set forth herein. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
United States v. Robert Theodore Bass
green
1 sentence1980United States v. Chavis, supra; United States v. Bass, supra; State v. Sahlie, supra; State v. McGhee, supra. For the foregoing reasons a moulded writ is issued to permit the trial court to conduct a good-cause hearing *420 for retention of experts in accordance with the standards set forth herein. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. McGhee
green
1 sentence1980United States v. Chavis, supra; United States v. Bass, supra; State v. Sahlie, supra; State v. McGhee, supra. For the foregoing reasons a moulded writ is issued to permit the trial court to conduct a good-cause hearing *420 for retention of experts in accordance with the standards set forth herein. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.