7 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1933–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hankerson v. North Carolinagreen2 sentences1978In Mullaney , as in Winship , the rule was designed to diminish the probability that an innocent person would be convicted and thus to overcome an aspect of a criminal trial that "substantially impairs the truth-finding function." . . . . . . . . [W]e have said that the question of whether the purpose of a new *916 constitutional rule is to enhance the integrity of the factfinding process is a question of "degree," . . . and when the degree to which the rule enhances the integrity of the factfinding process is sufficiently small, we have looked to questions of reliance by the State on the old 1978In Mullaney , as in Winship , the rule was designed to diminish the probability that an innocent person would be convicted and thus to overcome an aspect of a criminal trial that "substantially impairs the truth-finding function." . . . . . . . . [W]e have said that the question of whether the purpose of a new *916 constitutional rule is to enhance the integrity of the factfinding process is a question of "degree," . . . and when the degree to which the rule enhances the integrity of the factfinding process is sufficiently small, we have looked to questions of reliance by the State on the old | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. McLane
green
2 sentences1953It is also contrary to the reasoning expressed by this Court in the recent case of State v. McLane, 126 W.Va. 219 , 27 S.E.2d 604, 607 . 1953It is also contrary to the reasoning expressed by this Court in the recent case of State v. McLane, 126 W. | 2 | 1953–1953 |
State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward
green
2 sentences2001Relying on this finding, the Ohio Court applied a higher degree of analysis to the cap on damages and found that it was "irrational and arbitrary to impose the cost of the intended benefit to the general public solely upon a class consisting of those most severely injured by medical malpractice," and that any cap on damages was "unconstitutional because it does not bear a real and substantial relation to public health or welfare and further because it is unreasonable and arbitrary." 86 Ohio St.3d at 486 , 715 N.E.2d at 1092 . 2001Relying on this finding, the Ohio Court applied a higher degree of analysis to the cap on damages and found that it was "irrational and arbitrary to impose the cost of the intended benefit to the general public solely upon a class consisting of those most severely injured by medical malpractice," and that any cap on damages was "unconstitutional because it does not bear a real and substantial relation to public health or welfare and further because it is unreasonable and arbitrary." 86 Ohio St.3d at 486 , 715 N.E.2d at 1092 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Atkins
green
1 sentence1982In looking for such prejudicial effect, the Atkins opinion advises us to consider: (1) the degree to which the error was tangential to the ultimate issue of guilt; (2) the degree to which the error was repeated or emphasized; (3) whether the error prompted a special jury instruction or elicited any questions from the jury; (4) the overall quality of the State’s proof taking into consideration whether the case was based on circumstantial evidence; (5) whether the error related to critical testimony of the defendant; and (6) whether the cumulative impact of the error was great in the context of | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Western Assur. Co. v. Redding
neutral
1 sentence1933We quote with approval the observations of the Federal court regarding an untutored method of bookkeeping: “Viewed as ‘a set of books’ from the standpoint of an expert in that scientific system of bookkeeping which obtains in the business of an insurance company * * * these books in evidence are primitive to a degree which may test his temper if not his skill; but to impartial jurors patiently searching for proof to support a recovery on a contract of indemnity for a loss insured against, and incurred without fraud or fault on the part of the insured, these books tell a plainer story than the | 1 | 1933–1933 |
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.