8 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Noland v. Virginia Insurance Reciprocalgreen2 sentences2014Reciprocal, 224 W.Va. 372, 383 , 686 S.E.2d 23, 34 (2009) (“The prior decisions of this Court have clearly indicated that a common law bad faith claim sounds in tort.”); Wilt v. State Auto. 2014Reciprocal, 224 W.Va. 372, 383 , 686 S.E.2d 23, 34 (2009) (“The prior decisions of this Court have clearly indicated that a common law bad faith claim sounds in tort.”); Wilt v. State Auto. | 2 | 3 |
Hayseeds, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas.green2 sentences2016Statute of Limitation on the Hayseeds Claim As stated above, the Chedesters brought a common law bad faith claim under Hayseeds, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty, 177 W. 2005This Court has previously held that "[i]n order for a policyholder to bring a common law bad faith claim against his insurer, according to Hayseeds, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas., 177 W.Va. 323 , 352 S.E.2d 73 (1986) and its progeny, the policyholder *582 must first substantially prevail against his insurer on the underlying contract action. " Syl. pt. 5, Jordache Enters., Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. | 1 | 3 |
Gentry v. Mangumgreen2 sentences2009See Hoover v. Moran, 222 W.Va. 112, 119 , 662 S.E.2d 711, 718 (2008) (“[0]ur cases have made clear that ‘it is permissible for us to affirm the granting of [dismissal] on bases different or grounds other than those relied upon by the circuit court.’ ” (quoting Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W.Va. 512, 519 , 466 S.E.2d 171, 178 (1995))); U.S. Steel Mining Co., LLC v. Helton, 219 W.Va. 1 , 3 n. 3, 631 S.E.2d 559 , 561 n. 3 (2005) (“De novo review on appeal means that the result and not the' language used in or reasoning of the lower tribunal’s decision, is at issue. 2009See Hoover v. Moran, 222 W.Va. 112, 119 , 662 S.E.2d 711, 718 (2008) (“[0]ur cases have made clear that ‘it is permissible for us to affirm the granting of [dismissal] on bases different or grounds other than those relied upon by the circuit court.’ ” (quoting Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W.Va. 512, 519 , 466 S.E.2d 171, 178 (1995))); U.S. Steel Mining Co., LLC v. Helton, 219 W.Va. 1 , 3 n. 3, 631 S.E.2d 559 , 561 n. 3 (2005) (“De novo review on appeal means that the result and not the' language used in or reasoning of the lower tribunal’s decision, is at issue. | 1 | 1 |
Hawkins v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2009See Syl. pt. 2, Hawkins v. Ford Motor Co., 211 W.Va. 487 , 566 S.E.2d 624 (2002) (“The Unfair Trade Practices Act, W. 2009See Syl. pt. 2, Hawkins v. Ford Motor Co., 211 W.Va. 487 , 566 S.E.2d 624 (2002) (“The Unfair Trade Practices Act, W. | 1 | 1 |
Hoover v. Morangreen2 sentences2009See Hoover v. Moran, 222 W.Va. 112, 119 , 662 S.E.2d 711, 718 (2008) (“[0]ur cases have made clear that ‘it is permissible for us to affirm the granting of [dismissal] on bases different or grounds other than those relied upon by the circuit court.’ ” (quoting Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W.Va. 512, 519 , 466 S.E.2d 171, 178 (1995))); U.S. Steel Mining Co., LLC v. Helton, 219 W.Va. 1 , 3 n. 3, 631 S.E.2d 559 , 561 n. 3 (2005) (“De novo review on appeal means that the result and not the' language used in or reasoning of the lower tribunal’s decision, is at issue. 2009See Hoover v. Moran, 222 W.Va. 112, 119 , 662 S.E.2d 711, 718 (2008) (“[0]ur cases have made clear that ‘it is permissible for us to affirm the granting of [dismissal] on bases different or grounds other than those relied upon by the circuit court.’ ” (quoting Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W.Va. 512, 519 , 466 S.E.2d 171, 178 (1995))); U.S. Steel Mining Co., LLC v. Helton, 219 W.Va. 1 , 3 n. 3, 631 S.E.2d 559 , 561 n. 3 (2005) (“De novo review on appeal means that the result and not the' language used in or reasoning of the lower tribunal’s decision, is at issue. | 1 | 1 |
US Steel Min. Co., LLC v. Heltongreen2 sentences2009See Hoover v. Moran, 222 W.Va. 112, 119 , 662 S.E.2d 711, 718 (2008) (“[0]ur cases have made clear that ‘it is permissible for us to affirm the granting of [dismissal] on bases different or grounds other than those relied upon by the circuit court.’ ” (quoting Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W.Va. 512, 519 , 466 S.E.2d 171, 178 (1995))); U.S. Steel Mining Co., LLC v. Helton, 219 W.Va. 1 , 3 n. 3, 631 S.E.2d 559 , 561 n. 3 (2005) (“De novo review on appeal means that the result and not the' language used in or reasoning of the lower tribunal’s decision, is at issue. 2009See Hoover v. Moran, 222 W.Va. 112, 119 , 662 S.E.2d 711, 718 (2008) (“[0]ur cases have made clear that ‘it is permissible for us to affirm the granting of [dismissal] on bases different or grounds other than those relied upon by the circuit court.’ ” (quoting Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W.Va. 512, 519 , 466 S.E.2d 171, 178 (1995))); U.S. Steel Mining Co., LLC v. Helton, 219 W.Va. 1 , 3 n. 3, 631 S.E.2d 559 , 561 n. 3 (2005) (“De novo review on appeal means that the result and not the' language used in or reasoning of the lower tribunal’s decision, is at issue. | 1 | 1 |
Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurancegreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., Jordache, 204 W.Va. at 484 , 513 S.E.2d at 711 ("Our case law is clear that in order for a policyholder to bring a common law bad faith claim against his insurer, according to Hayseeds, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas., 177 W.Va. 323 , 352 S.E.2d 73 (1986) and its progeny, the policyholder must first substantially prevail against his insurer on the underlying contract action." (emphasis added)). 2005See, e.g., Jordache, 204 W.Va. at 484 , 513 S.E.2d at 711 ("Our case law is clear that in order for a policyholder to bring a common law bad faith claim against his insurer, according to Hayseeds, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas., 177 W.Va. 323 , 352 S.E.2d 73 (1986) and its progeny, the policyholder must first substantially prevail against his insurer on the underlying contract action." (emphasis added)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2009We will note, however, that in Syllabus point 1 of Taylor v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 214 W.Va. 324 , 589 S.E.2d 55 (2003), this Court held that "[a] cause of action exists in West Virginia to hold a claims adjuster employed by an insurance company personally liable for violations of the West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act, W. 2009We will note, however, that in Syllabus point 1 of Taylor v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 214 W.Va. 324 , 589 S.E.2d 55 (2003), this Court held that "[a] cause of action exists in West Virginia to hold a claims adjuster employed by an insurance company personally liable for violations of the West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act, W. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Sizemore v. State Farm General Insurance
green
2 sentences2009However, we were asked in Sizemore v. State Farm General Insurance Co., 202 W.Va. 591 , 505 S.E.2d 654 (1998), whether the one year statute of limitations contained in W. 2009However, we were asked in Sizemore v. State Farm General Insurance Co., 202 W.Va. 591 , 505 S.E.2d 654 (1998), whether the one year statute of limitations contained in W. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Flanagan v. Mott
green
2 sentences1998Co., 932 F.Supp. 770 (S.D.W.Va.1996). [12] See, e.g., Syl. pt. 6, Flanagan v. Mott, 145 W.Va. 220 , 114 S.E.2d 331 (1960) ("`The jury should not in any manner be apprised of the fact that the defendant is protected by indemnity insurance, and such action on the part of plaintiff or his counsel will ordinarily constitute reversible error, notwithstanding the court may instruct the jury not to consider the same in arriving at a verdict.' Point 1, Syllabus, Wilkins v. Schwartz, 101 W.Va. 337 [, 132 S.E. 887 (1926)]."). [13] We hasten to note that some jurisdictions do not provide for a statutory 1998Co., 932 F.Supp. 770 (S.D.W.Va.1996). [12] See, e.g., Syl. pt. 6, Flanagan v. Mott, 145 W.Va. 220 , 114 S.E.2d 331 (1960) ("`The jury should not in any manner be apprised of the fact that the defendant is protected by indemnity insurance, and such action on the part of plaintiff or his counsel will ordinarily constitute reversible error, notwithstanding the court may instruct the jury not to consider the same in arriving at a verdict.' Point 1, Syllabus, Wilkins v. Schwartz, 101 W.Va. 337 [, 132 S.E. 887 (1926)]."). [13] We hasten to note that some jurisdictions do not provide for a statutory | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Smith v. Westfield Insurance
green
1 sentence1998Co., 932 F.Supp. 770 (S.D.W.Va.1996). [12] See, e.g., Syl. pt. 6, Flanagan v. Mott, 145 W.Va. 220 , 114 S.E.2d 331 (1960) ("`The jury should not in any manner be apprised of the fact that the defendant is protected by indemnity insurance, and such action on the part of plaintiff or his counsel will ordinarily constitute reversible error, notwithstanding the court may instruct the jury not to consider the same in arriving at a verdict.' Point 1, Syllabus, Wilkins v. Schwartz, 101 W.Va. 337 [, 132 S.E. 887 (1926)]."). [13] We hasten to note that some jurisdictions do not provide for a statutory | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Wilkins v. Schwartz
green
2 sentences1998Co., 932 F.Supp. 770 (S.D.W.Va.1996). [12] See, e.g., Syl. pt. 6, Flanagan v. Mott, 145 W.Va. 220 , 114 S.E.2d 331 (1960) ("`The jury should not in any manner be apprised of the fact that the defendant is protected by indemnity insurance, and such action on the part of plaintiff or his counsel will ordinarily constitute reversible error, notwithstanding the court may instruct the jury not to consider the same in arriving at a verdict.' Point 1, Syllabus, Wilkins v. Schwartz, 101 W.Va. 337 [, 132 S.E. 887 (1926)]."). [13] We hasten to note that some jurisdictions do not provide for a statutory 1998Co., 932 F.Supp. 770 (S.D.W.Va.1996). [12] See, e.g., Syl. pt. 6, Flanagan v. Mott, 145 W.Va. 220 , 114 S.E.2d 331 (1960) ("`The jury should not in any manner be apprised of the fact that the defendant is protected by indemnity insurance, and such action on the part of plaintiff or his counsel will ordinarily constitute reversible error, notwithstanding the court may instruct the jury not to consider the same in arriving at a verdict.' Point 1, Syllabus, Wilkins v. Schwartz, 101 W.Va. 337 [, 132 S.E. 887 (1926)]."). [13] We hasten to note that some jurisdictions do not provide for a statutory | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.