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.
8 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Huffman v. Goals Coal Co.green1 sentence2019See Syl. pt. 2, Huffman v. Goals Coal Co. , 223 W. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Greergreen2 sentences1999One simply steps into the shoes of the victim and is able to do only as much as the victim himself would lawfully be permitted to do.”. 14 The broad parameters of the defense of another doctrine were articulated by this Court over one hundred years ago in the ease of State v. Greer, 22 W.Va. 800, 819 (1883), wherein we held that the right of defense of another may be exercised in defense of a family member: What one may lawfully do in defense of himself — when threatened with death or great bodily harm, he may do in behalf of a brother; but if the brother was in fault in provoking an assault, 1999One simply steps into the shoes of the victim and is able to do only as much as the victim himself would lawfully be permitted to do." [14] The broad parameters of the defense of another doctrine were articulated by this Court over one hundred years ago in the case of State v. Greer, 22 W.Va. 800, 819 (1883), wherein we held that the right of defense of another may be exercised in defense of a family member: What one may lawfully do in defense of himself—when threatened with death or great bodily harm, he may do in behalf of a brother; but if the brother was in fault in provoking an assault, t | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kentucky v. King
green
2 sentences2014However, the majority opinion’s application of the “knock and talk” doctrine is inconsistent with the parameters of the doctrine as recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Kentucky v. King, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1849 , 179 L. 2014However, the majority opinion’s application of the “knock and talk” doctrine is inconsistent with the parameters of the doctrine as recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Kentucky v. King, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1849 , 179 L. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Myers
green
2 sentences2013In Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Myers, 159 W.Va. 353 , 222 S.E.2d 300 (1976), overruled on other grounds by State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657 , 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995), 2 we held that [w]hen a defendant in a criminal case raises the issue of insanity, the test of his responsibility for his act is whether, at the time of the commission of the act, it was the result of a mental disease or defect causing the accused to lack the capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his act or to conform his act to the requirements of the law, and it is error for the trial court to give an instruction on t 2013In Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Myers, 159 W.Va. 353 , 222 S.E.2d 300 (1976), overruled on other grounds by State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657 , 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995), 2 we held that [w]hen a defendant in a criminal case raises the issue of insanity, the test of his responsibility for his act is whether, at the time of the commission of the act, it was the result of a mental disease or defect causing the accused to lack the capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his act or to conform his act to the requirements of the law, and it is error for the trial court to give an instruction on t | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Guthrie
green
2 sentences2013In Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Myers, 159 W.Va. 353 , 222 S.E.2d 300 (1976), overruled on other grounds by State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657 , 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995), 2 we held that [w]hen a defendant in a criminal case raises the issue of insanity, the test of his responsibility for his act is whether, at the time of the commission of the act, it was the result of a mental disease or defect causing the accused to lack the capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his act or to conform his act to the requirements of the law, and it is error for the trial court to give an instruction on t 2013In Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Myers, 159 W.Va. 353 , 222 S.E.2d 300 (1976), overruled on other grounds by State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657 , 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995), 2 we held that [w]hen a defendant in a criminal case raises the issue of insanity, the test of his responsibility for his act is whether, at the time of the commission of the act, it was the result of a mental disease or defect causing the accused to lack the capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his act or to conform his act to the requirements of the law, and it is error for the trial court to give an instruction on t | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Walton v. Cherokee Colliery Co.
green
2 sentences2003The parameters of that exception were stated in the Syllabus of Walton v. Cherokee Colliery Co., 70 W.Va. 48 , 73 S.E. 63 (1911) as follows: Genei’ally, if one let work, lawful within itself, to a contractor and retain no control over the manner of its performance, he is not liable on account of negligence of the contractor or his servants. 2003The parameters of that exception were stated in the Syllabus of Walton v. Cherokee Colliery Co., 70 W.Va. 48 , 73 S.E. 63 (1911) as follows: Genei’ally, if one let work, lawful within itself, to a contractor and retain no control over the manner of its performance, he is not liable on account of negligence of the contractor or his servants. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Harless v. First National Bank in Fairmont
green
2 sentences1997When this Court chose the phrase "substantial public policy" in Harless v. First National Bank (" Harless I "), 162 W.Va. 116 , 246 S.E.2d 270 (1978), it was articulating the narrow parameters of an exception to the at will employment doctrine. 1997When this Court chose the phrase "substantial public policy" in Harless v. First National Bank (" Harless I "), 162 W.Va. 116 , 246 S.E.2d 270 (1978), it was articulating the narrow parameters of an exception to the at will employment doctrine. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Larson
green
2 sentences1980Anderson v. City of Wheeling, supra. As was stated by the Minnesota court in State v. Larson, 292 Minn. 350 , 195 N.W.2d 180 (1972), “[t]he burden of proof is upon the appellant to show by clear and convincing proof that the relief he seeks would not result in any substantial detriment to the neighboring property improved in reliance on the validity of the ordinance.” 195 N.W.2d at 184 . 1980Anderson v. City of Wheeling, supra. As was stated by the Minnesota court in State v. Larson, 292 Minn. 350 , 195 N.W.2d 180 (1972), “[t]he burden of proof is upon the appellant to show by clear and convincing proof that the relief he seeks would not result in any substantial detriment to the neighboring property improved in reliance on the validity of the ordinance.” 195 N.W.2d at 184 . | 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.