assessment of three factors (West Virginia) · Go Syfert
← West Virginia issues

assessment of three factors in West Virginia

7 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1987–1996 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Liller v. West Virginia Human Rights Commissiongreen
wva · 1988 · cited in 2 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1991–1993
2 sentences

1993We held in Syllabus Point 3 of Mellon-Stuart Co. v. Hall, 178 W.Va. 291 , 359 S.E.2d 124 (1987), that res judicata may apply to an administrative agency if the following conditions are met: “An assessment of three factors is ordinarily made in determining whether res judicata and collateral estoppel may be applied to a hearing body: (1) whether the body acts in a judicial capacity; (2) whether the parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matters in dispute; and (3) whether applying the doctrines is consistent with the express or implied policy in the legislation which

1993We held in Syllabus Point 3 of Mellon-Stuart Co. v. Hall, 178 W.Va. 291 , 359 S.E.2d 124 (1987), that res judicata may apply to an administrative agency if the following conditions are met: “An assessment of three factors is ordinarily made in determining whether res judicata and collateral estoppel may be applied to a hearing body: (1) whether the body acts in a judicial capacity; (2) whether the parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matters in dispute; and (3) whether applying the doctrines is consistent with the express or implied policy in the legislation which

12
Vest v. Bd. of Educ. of Cty. of Nicholasgreen
wva · 1995 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
2 sentences

1995Res judicata or collateral estoppel effect may be given to matters litigated in the court of claims.” See also Vest v. Board of Educ. of the County of Nicholas, 193 W.Va. 222 , 455 S.E.2d 781 *726 (1995) 23 ; Central W.Va.

1995Res judicata or collateral estoppel effect may be given to matters litigated in the court of claims.” See also Vest v. Board of Educ. of the County of Nicholas, 193 W.Va. 222 , 455 S.E.2d 781 *726 (1995) 23 ; Central W.Va.

11
Jones v. Glenville State Collegegreen
wva · 1993 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994Pt. 2, Jones v. Glenville State College, 189 W.Va. 546, 548 , 433 S.E.2d 49, 51 (1993) (quoting Syl.

1994Pt. 2, Jones v. Glenville State College, 189 W.Va. 546, 548 , 433 S.E.2d 49, 51 (1993) (quoting Syl.

11
Carter v. City of Bluefieldgreen
wva · 1949 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
2 sentences

1987Similarly, in Carter v. City of Bluefield, 132 W.Va. 881, 900 , 54 S.E.2d 747, 758 (1949), we appeared to recognize the principle of administrative res judicata, but found it to be inapplicable in that case. *300 Generally, authorities require an assessment of three factors in determining whether res judicata and collateral estoppel may be applied to a hearing body: (1) whether the body acts in a judicial capacity; (2) whether the parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matters in dispute; and (3) whether applying the doctrines is consistent with the express or implie

1987Similarly, in Carter v. City of Bluefield, 132 W.Va. 881, 900 , 54 S.E.2d 747, 758 (1949), we appeared to recognize the principle of administrative res judicata, but found it to be inapplicable in that case. *300 Generally, authorities require an assessment of three factors in determining whether res judicata and collateral estoppel may be applied to a hearing body: (1) whether the body acts in a judicial capacity; (2) whether the parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matters in dispute; and (3) whether applying the doctrines is consistent with the express or implie

11
McCulty v. Rockefellergreen
wvsd · 1983 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
1 sentence

1987See generally, McCulty v. Rockefeller, 570 F.Supp. 1455 (S.D.W.Va.1983) (administrative agency); People v. Sims, 32 Cal.3d 468 , 651 P.2d 321 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 77 (1982) (administrative agency); Clemens v. Apple, 65 N.Y.2d 746 , 481 N.E.2d 560 , 492 N.Y.S.2d 20 (1985) (arbitration); Ryan v. New York Telephone Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494 , 467 N.E.2d 487 , 478 N.Y.S.2d 823 (1984) (administrative agency); Superior’s Brand Meats, Inc. v. Lindley, 62 Ohio St.2d 133 , 16 Ohio Op.3d 150 , 403 N.E.2d 996 (1980) (administrative agency); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 83 (1982); K.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Mellon-Stuart Co. v. Hall green
wva · 1987
2 sentences

1996In syllabus point three of Mellon-Stuart Co. v. Hall, we stated: An assessment of three factors is ordinarily made in determining whether res judicata and collateral estoppel may be applied to a hearing body: (1) whether the body acts in a judicial capacity; (2) whether the parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matters in dispute; and (3) whether applying the doctrines is consistent with the express or implied policy in the legislation which created the body. 178 W.Va. 291 , 359 S.E.2d 124 (1987).

1996In syllabus point three of Mellon-Stuart Co. v. Hall, we stated: An assessment of three factors is ordinarily made in determining whether res judicata and collateral estoppel may be applied to a hearing body: (1) whether the body acts in a judicial capacity; (2) whether the parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matters in dispute; and (3) whether applying the doctrines is consistent with the express or implied policy in the legislation which created the body. 178 W.Va. 291 , 359 S.E.2d 124 (1987).

31988–1996
Slack v. Kanawha County Housing & Redevelopment Authority green
wva · 1992
2 sentences

1996In Slack v. Kanawha County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, 188 W.Va. 144 , 423 S.E.2d 547 (1992), this Court commented that “the statutory standard applicable in unemployment compensation claims is more liberal in accordance with the beneficial purposes underlying unemployment security law and is not applicable in a constructive discharge case.” Id. at 155 , 423 S.E.2d at 558 .

1996In Slack v. Kanawha County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, 188 W.Va. 144 , 423 S.E.2d 547 (1992), this Court commented that “the statutory standard applicable in unemployment compensation claims is more liberal in accordance with the beneficial purposes underlying unemployment security law and is not applicable in a constructive discharge case.” Id. at 155 , 423 S.E.2d at 558 .

11996–1996
Rowan v. McKnight green
wva · 1991
2 sentences

1993We held in Syllabus Point 3 of Mellon-Stuart Co. v. Hall, 178 W.Va. 291 , 359 S.E.2d 124 (1987), that res judicata may apply to an administrative agency if the following conditions are met: “An assessment of three factors is ordinarily made in determining whether res judicata and collateral estoppel may be applied to a hearing body: (1) whether the body acts in a judicial capacity; (2) whether the parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matters in dispute; and (3) whether applying the doctrines is consistent with the express or implied policy in the legislation which

1993We held in Syllabus Point 3 of Mellon-Stuart Co. v. Hall, 178 W.Va. 291 , 359 S.E.2d 124 (1987), that res judicata may apply to an administrative agency if the following conditions are met: “An assessment of three factors is ordinarily made in determining whether res judicata and collateral estoppel may be applied to a hearing body: (1) whether the body acts in a judicial capacity; (2) whether the parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matters in dispute; and (3) whether applying the doctrines is consistent with the express or implied policy in the legislation which

11993–1993
Ryan v. New York Telephone Co. green
ny · 1984
2 sentences

1987See generally, McCulty v. Rockefeller, 570 F.Supp. 1455 (S.D.W.Va.1983) (administrative agency); People v. Sims, 32 Cal.3d 468 , 651 P.2d 321 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 77 (1982) (administrative agency); Clemens v. Apple, 65 N.Y.2d 746 , 481 N.E.2d 560 , 492 N.Y.S.2d 20 (1985) (arbitration); Ryan v. New York Telephone Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494 , 467 N.E.2d 487 , 478 N.Y.S.2d 823 (1984) (administrative agency); Superior’s Brand Meats, Inc. v. Lindley, 62 Ohio St.2d 133 , 16 Ohio Op.3d 150 , 403 N.E.2d 996 (1980) (administrative agency); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 83 (1982); K.

1987See generally, McCulty v. Rockefeller, 570 F.Supp. 1455 (S.D.W.Va.1983) (administrative agency); People v. Sims, 32 Cal.3d 468 , 651 P.2d 321 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 77 (1982) (administrative agency); Clemens v. Apple, 65 N.Y.2d 746 , 481 N.E.2d 560 , 492 N.Y.S.2d 20 (1985) (arbitration); Ryan v. New York Telephone Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494 , 467 N.E.2d 487 , 478 N.Y.S.2d 823 (1984) (administrative agency); Superior’s Brand Meats, Inc. v. Lindley, 62 Ohio St.2d 133 , 16 Ohio Op.3d 150 , 403 N.E.2d 996 (1980) (administrative agency); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 83 (1982); K.

11987–1987
People v. Sims red
cal · 1982
2 sentences

1987See generally, McCulty v. Rockefeller, 570 F.Supp. 1455 (S.D.W.Va.1983) (administrative agency); People v. Sims, 32 Cal.3d 468 , 651 P.2d 321 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 77 (1982) (administrative agency); Clemens v. Apple, 65 N.Y.2d 746 , 481 N.E.2d 560 , 492 N.Y.S.2d 20 (1985) (arbitration); Ryan v. New York Telephone Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494 , 467 N.E.2d 487 , 478 N.Y.S.2d 823 (1984) (administrative agency); Superior’s Brand Meats, Inc. v. Lindley, 62 Ohio St.2d 133 , 16 Ohio Op.3d 150 , 403 N.E.2d 996 (1980) (administrative agency); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 83 (1982); K.

1987See generally, McCulty v. Rockefeller, 570 F.Supp. 1455 (S.D.W.Va.1983) (administrative agency); People v. Sims, 32 Cal.3d 468 , 651 P.2d 321 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 77 (1982) (administrative agency); Clemens v. Apple, 65 N.Y.2d 746 , 481 N.E.2d 560 , 492 N.Y.S.2d 20 (1985) (arbitration); Ryan v. New York Telephone Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494 , 467 N.E.2d 487 , 478 N.Y.S.2d 823 (1984) (administrative agency); Superior’s Brand Meats, Inc. v. Lindley, 62 Ohio St.2d 133 , 16 Ohio Op.3d 150 , 403 N.E.2d 996 (1980) (administrative agency); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 83 (1982); K.

11987–1987
Superior's Brand Meats, Inc. v. Lindley green
ohio · 1980
2 sentences

1987See generally, McCulty v. Rockefeller, 570 F.Supp. 1455 (S.D.W.Va.1983) (administrative agency); People v. Sims, 32 Cal.3d 468 , 651 P.2d 321 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 77 (1982) (administrative agency); Clemens v. Apple, 65 N.Y.2d 746 , 481 N.E.2d 560 , 492 N.Y.S.2d 20 (1985) (arbitration); Ryan v. New York Telephone Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494 , 467 N.E.2d 487 , 478 N.Y.S.2d 823 (1984) (administrative agency); Superior’s Brand Meats, Inc. v. Lindley, 62 Ohio St.2d 133 , 16 Ohio Op.3d 150 , 403 N.E.2d 996 (1980) (administrative agency); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 83 (1982); K.

1987See generally, McCulty v. Rockefeller, 570 F.Supp. 1455 (S.D.W.Va.1983) (administrative agency); People v. Sims, 32 Cal.3d 468 , 651 P.2d 321 , 186 Cal.Rptr. 77 (1982) (administrative agency); Clemens v. Apple, 65 N.Y.2d 746 , 481 N.E.2d 560 , 492 N.Y.S.2d 20 (1985) (arbitration); Ryan v. New York Telephone Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494 , 467 N.E.2d 487 , 478 N.Y.S.2d 823 (1984) (administrative agency); Superior’s Brand Meats, Inc. v. Lindley, 62 Ohio St.2d 133 , 16 Ohio Op.3d 150 , 403 N.E.2d 996 (1980) (administrative agency); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 83 (1982); K.

11987–1987

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check