9 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1974–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dobbs v. Wallacegreen2 sentences2016After Morrissey , this Court, in syllabus point 1 of Dobbs v. Wallace, 157 W.Va. 405 , 201 S.E.2d 914 (1974), recognized that a parole revocation hearing, “being a critical proceeding at which *191 the accused parolee’s liberty is in jeopardy, must be conducted within the protections afforded by the state and federal constitutions.” Here, as the habeas court noted, Pratt had a revocation hearing before the Parole Board during which his parole was formally revoked. 2016After Morrissey , this Court, in syllabus point 1 of Dobbs v. Wallace, 157 W.Va. 405 , 201 S.E.2d 914 (1974), recognized that a parole revocation hearing, “being a critical proceeding at which *191 the accused parolee’s liberty is in jeopardy, must be conducted within the protections afforded by the state and federal constitutions.” Here, as the habeas court noted, Pratt had a revocation hearing before the Parole Board during which his parole was formally revoked. | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences1996Further, in Dobbs v. Wallace, 157 W.Va. 405 , 201 S.E.2d 914 (1974), this Court considered in depth the question of whether a parole revocation hearing conducted by a single member of the Parole Board rather than the entire Parole Board was appropriate, especially in view of the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 38 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), in which the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that the termination of parole requires an orderly process and is within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United Sta 1996Further, in Dobbs v. Wallace, 157 W.Va. 405 , 201 S.E.2d 914 (1974), this Court considered in depth the question of whether a parole revocation hearing conducted by a single member of the Parole Board rather than the entire Parole Board was appropriate, especially in view of the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 38 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), in which the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that the termination of parole requires an orderly process and is within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United Sta | 2 | 1979–1996 |
State v. Legg
green
1 sentence2025Pt. 3, State v. Legg, 207 W. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Kennedy v. Frazier
green
1 sentence2025Pt. 1, Kennedy v. Frazier, 178 W. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Israel Ex Rel. Israel v. West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Commission
green
1 sentence2025Va. 454 , 388 S.E.2d 480 (1989)). 9 of proof required at a final parole revocation hearing should be addressed for the future guidance of the bar and of the public. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State Ex Rel. Valentine v. Watkins
green
2 sentences2013Valentine v. Watson, 208 W.Va. 26 , 537 S.E.2d 647 (2000), this Court ruled that the remedy for an unreasonable delay in the holding of the petitioner’s final parole revocation hearing was to award the petitioner “good time” credit, if otherwise warranted, for the additional time the petitioner spent in jail because of the Board’s delay. 2013Valentine v. Watson, 208 W.Va. 26 , 537 S.E.2d 647 (2000), this Court ruled that the remedy for an unreasonable delay in the holding of the petitioner’s final parole revocation hearing was to award the petitioner “good time” credit, if otherwise warranted, for the additional time the petitioner spent in jail because of the Board’s delay. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Scott v. Crawford
green
1 sentence2013The Court in Valentine did not order the petitioner’s release. 2 S.E.2d 301 (1981), this Court held as follows: “The decision to grant or deny parole is a discretionary evaluation to be made by the [Board]. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Larson v. Mckenzie
green
1 sentence2000Cf. Larson v. McKenzie, 554 F.2d 131 (4th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (suggesting, in case of multiple convictions and sentences, that execution of parole violator’s warrant within maximum term of first underlying sentence satisfies notions of fundamental fairness). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Fraley
green
2 sentences1988Cf. State v. Fraley, 163 W.Va. 542 , 258 S.E.2d 129 (1979) (the use of hearsay at a parole revocation hearing deprives the alleged violator of the right to fully confront his accusers and therefore deprives him of the due process rights accorded in Louk), and W.Va.R.Evid. 1101(a) and 1101(b)(3) (February 1, 1985) with State v. Holcomb, 178 W.Va. 455 , 360 S.E.2d 232 (1987) and State v. Ketchum, 169 W.Va. 9 , 289 S.E.2d 657 (1981) (probation revocation hearings are not subject to strict criminal procedure requirements). 1988Cf. State v. Fraley, 163 W.Va. 542 , 258 S.E.2d 129 (1979) (the use of hearsay at a parole revocation hearing deprives the alleged violator of the right to fully confront his accusers and therefore deprives him of the due process rights accorded in Louk), and W.Va.R.Evid. 1101(a) and 1101(b)(3) (February 1, 1985) with State v. Holcomb, 178 W.Va. 455 , 360 S.E.2d 232 (1987) and State v. Ketchum, 169 W.Va. 9 , 289 S.E.2d 657 (1981) (probation revocation hearings are not subject to strict criminal procedure requirements). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Ketchum
green
2 sentences1988Cf. State v. Fraley, 163 W.Va. 542 , 258 S.E.2d 129 (1979) (the use of hearsay at a parole revocation hearing deprives the alleged violator of the right to fully confront his accusers and therefore deprives him of the due process rights accorded in Louk), and W.Va.R.Evid. 1101(a) and 1101(b)(3) (February 1, 1985) with State v. Holcomb, 178 W.Va. 455 , 360 S.E.2d 232 (1987) and State v. Ketchum, 169 W.Va. 9 , 289 S.E.2d 657 (1981) (probation revocation hearings are not subject to strict criminal procedure requirements). 1988Cf. State v. Fraley, 163 W.Va. 542 , 258 S.E.2d 129 (1979) (the use of hearsay at a parole revocation hearing deprives the alleged violator of the right to fully confront his accusers and therefore deprives him of the due process rights accorded in Louk), and W.Va.R.Evid. 1101(a) and 1101(b)(3) (February 1, 1985) with State v. Holcomb, 178 W.Va. 455 , 360 S.E.2d 232 (1987) and State v. Ketchum, 169 W.Va. 9 , 289 S.E.2d 657 (1981) (probation revocation hearings are not subject to strict criminal procedure requirements). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Holcomb
green
2 sentences1988Cf. State v. Fraley, 163 W.Va. 542 , 258 S.E.2d 129 (1979) (the use of hearsay at a parole revocation hearing deprives the alleged violator of the right to fully confront his accusers and therefore deprives him of the due process rights accorded in Louk), and W.Va.R.Evid. 1101(a) and 1101(b)(3) (February 1, 1985) with State v. Holcomb, 178 W.Va. 455 , 360 S.E.2d 232 (1987) and State v. Ketchum, 169 W.Va. 9 , 289 S.E.2d 657 (1981) (probation revocation hearings are not subject to strict criminal procedure requirements). 1988Cf. State v. Fraley, 163 W.Va. 542 , 258 S.E.2d 129 (1979) (the use of hearsay at a parole revocation hearing deprives the alleged violator of the right to fully confront his accusers and therefore deprives him of the due process rights accorded in Louk), and W.Va.R.Evid. 1101(a) and 1101(b)(3) (February 1, 1985) with State v. Holcomb, 178 W.Va. 455 , 360 S.E.2d 232 (1987) and State v. Ketchum, 169 W.Va. 9 , 289 S.E.2d 657 (1981) (probation revocation hearings are not subject to strict criminal procedure requirements). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State Ex Rel. Strickland v. Melton
green
1 sentence1975Va., 165 S.E.2d 90 (1968), and at a parole revocation hearing, Dobbs v. Wallace, W. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Roy Alton Lane v. Attorney General of the United States
green
1 sentence1974The very fact that the Florida legislature has seen fit to permit representation by counsel, at least to non-indigents, we think attests to its efficacy.” Citing and relying on the decision in Cottle , the court, in Lane v. Attorney General of the United States, 477 F.2d 847 (1973), arrived at the same conclusion. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.