7 Virgin Islands opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virgin Islands 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 |
|---|---|---|
United Corp. v. Hamedgreen1 sentence2017However, because “ ‘Article III of the United States Constitution does not apply to local [Article IV] courts and no provision of Virgin Islands law includes a case-or-controversy requirement,’ ” United Corp. v. Hamed, 64 V.I. 297, 303 (2016) (quoting Hodge v. Bluebeard’s Castle, Inc., 62 V.I. 671 , 687 n.8 (2015)) (other citations omitted), the maturity of a contribution claim might at most raise a prudential concern as to its ripeness. | 1 | 1 |
Bryan v. Fawkesgreen1 sentence2016We have reaffirmed this abrogation numerous times since, stating most recently that “standing is at best a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule in Virgin Islands courts, since Article III of the United States Constitution does not apply to local courts and no provision of Virgin Islands law includes a case-or-controversy requirement.” Hodge, 62 V.I. at 687 n.8 (citing Malloy v. Reyes, 61 V.I. 163 , 171 n.4 (V.I. 2014)); see also Bryan v. Fawkes, 61 V.I. 201, 222 (V.I. 2014); In re Q.G., 60 V.I. 654 , 659 n.5 (V.I. 2014); Tip Top Constr. | 1 | 1 |
Vazquez v. Vazquezgreen1 sentence2012See Vazquez, 54 V.I. at 489-90 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hansen v. O'Reillygreen1 sentence2017But cf. Hansen v. O ’Reilly, 62 V.I. 494, 510 (2015) (citing Ottley v. Estate of Bell, 61 V.I. 480, 496-97 (2014), and explaining parenthetically that “subsequent events may ripen otherwise premature court proceedings.”) (remaining citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Ottley v. Estate of Bellgreen1 sentence2017But cf. Hansen v. O ’Reilly, 62 V.I. 494, 510 (2015) (citing Ottley v. Estate of Bell, 61 V.I. 480, 496-97 (2014), and explaining parenthetically that “subsequent events may ripen otherwise premature court proceedings.”) (remaining citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hodge v. Bluebeard's Castle, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017However, because “ ‘Article III of the United States Constitution does not apply to local [Article IV] courts and no provision of Virgin Islands law includes a case-or-controversy requirement,’ ” United Corp. v. Hamed, 64 V.I. 297, 303 (2016) (quoting Hodge v. Bluebeard’s Castle, Inc., 62 V.I. 671 , 687 n.8 (2015)) (other citations omitted), the maturity of a contribution claim might at most raise a prudential concern as to its ripeness. 2017Standing — in the sense of the constitutional restriction on the authority of courts — “is at best a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule in Virgin Islands courts, since Article III of the United States Constitution does not apply to local courts and no provision of Virgin Islands law includes a case-or-controversy requirement.” Hodge v. Bluebeard’s Castle, Inc., 62 V.I. 671 , 687 n.8 (2015) (citation omitted). | 5 | 2015–2017 |
Malloy v. Reyes
green
2 sentences2016We have reaffirmed this abrogation numerous times since, stating most recently that “standing is at best a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule in Virgin Islands courts, since Article III of the United States Constitution does not apply to local courts and no provision of Virgin Islands law includes a case-or-controversy requirement.” Hodge, 62 V.I. at 687 n.8 (citing Malloy v. Reyes, 61 V.I. 163 , 171 n.4 (V.I. 2014)); see also Bryan v. Fawkes, 61 V.I. 201, 222 (V.I. 2014); In re Q.G., 60 V.I. 654 , 659 n.5 (V.I. 2014); Tip Top Constr. 2016However, “standing is at best a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule in Virgin Islands courts, since Article III of the United States Constitution does not apply to local courts and no provision of Virgin Islands law includes a case-or-controversy requirement.”Hodge v. Bluebeard’s Castle, Inc., 62 V.I. 671 , 687 n.8 (V.I. 2015) (citing Malloy v. Reyes, 61 V.I. 163 , 171 n.4 (V.1.2014)); see also 4 V.I.C. § 32(a) (providing that “[t]he Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction over all appeals arising from final judgments” without limiting who may appeal from such a judgment). | 4 | 2015–2016 |
In re Q.G.
green
1 sentence2016We have reaffirmed this abrogation numerous times since, stating most recently that “standing is at best a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule in Virgin Islands courts, since Article III of the United States Constitution does not apply to local courts and no provision of Virgin Islands law includes a case-or-controversy requirement.” Hodge, 62 V.I. at 687 n.8 (citing Malloy v. Reyes, 61 V.I. 163 , 171 n.4 (V.I. 2014)); see also Bryan v. Fawkes, 61 V.I. 201, 222 (V.I. 2014); In re Q.G., 60 V.I. 654 , 659 n.5 (V.I. 2014); Tip Top Constr. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Tip Top Constructions Corp. v. Government of the Virgin Islands
green
1 sentence2016Corp. v. Gov’t of the V.I., 60 V.I. 724 , 730 n.2 (V.I. 2014); V.I. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.