bill of review error (West Virginia) · Go Syfert
← West Virginia issues

bill of review error in West Virginia

7 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1900–1970 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 (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia.

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 (8)

CaseCitedYears
Dunn's Ex'rs v. Renick green
wva · 1895
2 sentences

1903Dunn v. Renick, 40 W.Va. 349 .

1902Va. 556 , Dunn v. Renick, 40 W.

21902–1903
Vencill v. Vencill green
wva · 1927
1 sentence

1970Va. 708 , *771 138 S. E. 731 , this Court held in point 2 of the syllabus that a final decree upon the merits after answer filed can not be reheard, reviewed or otherwise disturbed in the court below, after the end of the term at which it was pronounced, except for such matter as constitutes ground for a bill of review for error apparent in the decree, bill of review for newly discovered evidence, or an original bill to impeach it for sufficient cause, such as fraud in its procurement.

11970–1970
Thompson v. Parsley neutral
wva · 1926
2 sentences

1955Thompson v. Parsley, 100 W.

1955Thompson v. Parsley, 100 W.

11955–1955
Snyder v. Middle States Loan, Building & Construction Co. neutral
wva · 1902
1 sentence

1927Va. 655 , 44 S. E. 250 , holding that a final decree upon the merits after answer filed can not be reheard, reviewed or otherwise disturbed in the court below, after the end of the term at which it ivas pronounced, except for such matter as constitutes ground for a bill of review for error apparent in the decree, bill of review for newly discovered evidence, or an original bill to impeach it for sufficient cause, such as fraud in its procurement.

11927–1927
Maxwell v. Martin neutral
wva · 1891
1 sentence

1906Maxwell v. Martin, 35 W.

11906–1906
Lorentz v. Lorentz neutral
wva · 1889
1 sentence

1902While it is not permissible, on a bill of review for error apparent in the decree, to look into the evidence and pass upon controverted matters of fact, Lorentz v. Lorentz, 32 W.

11902–1902
Gray v. Baltimore Building & Loan Ass'n neutral
wva · 1900
1 sentence

1902That the contract between the Building Association and Snyder is illegal, under the ruling of this Court in Gray v. Building Association, 48 W.

11902–1902
Wethered v. Elliott neutral
wva · 1898
1 sentence

1900Wethered v. Elliott, 45 W.

11900–1900

Where else courts name it

TX 65 (1934–2024) IL 12 (1897–1938) WV 7 (1900–1970) FL 3 (1889–1949) TN 3 (1901–1956) MA 3 (1924–1939) IN 2 (1881–1882) AL 2 (1913–1935)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check