7 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1928–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Mooneygreen1 sentence2010He also claimed that he likely would have succeeded at trial in persuading the court to submit the justification defense to the jury and in convincing the jury of the defense----The district court denied Mooney’s § 2255 motion, holding that counsel’s failure to research the defense of justification was not unreasonable professional assistance because Mooney’s “continued possession of the weapon after leaving the home negate[d] his possible defensef.]” Mooney, 497 F.3d at 401 (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.green2 sentences1986Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 718 , 87 S.Ct. 1404, 1407 , 18 L.Ed.2d 475, 478 (1967). [6] Assessment of reasonable attorney's fees against a losing litigant who has acted in "bad faith" is consistent with the primary justification for the rule against the shifting of attorney's fees, specifically, that the losing litigant should not be discouraged from fairly prosecuting or defending a claim. 1986Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 718 , 87 S.Ct. 1404, 1407 , 18 L.Ed.2d 475, 478 (1967). [6] Assessment of reasonable attorney's fees against a losing litigant who has acted in "bad faith" is consistent with the primary justification for the rule against the shifting of attorney's fees, specifically, that the losing litigant should not be discouraged from fairly prosecuting or defending a claim. | 1 | 1 |
Gustave Gerstle, (Cross-Appellants) v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., (Cross-Appellee)green2 sentences1986Gerstle v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 478 F.2d 1281, 1309 (2d Cir.1973). 1986Gerstle v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 478 F.2d 1281, 1309 (2d Cir.1973). | 1 | 1 |
Supreme Court of NH v. Pipergreen2 sentences1985Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 288 , 105 S.Ct. 1272, 1279 , 84 L.Ed.2d 205, 213 (1985). 1985Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 288 , 105 S.Ct. 1272, 1279 , 84 L.Ed.2d 205, 213 (1985). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pittsburgh Elevator Co. v. West Virginia Board of Regents
green
2 sentences2008Pittsburgh Elevator, 172 W.Va. at 756 , 310 S.E.2d at 688 . 2008Pittsburgh Elevator, 172 W.Va. at 756 , 310 S.E.2d at 688 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Lewis v. Doll
green
2 sentences1989Refusal of service cannot be predicated solely because of race." 53 Wash.App. at 210 , 765 P.2d at 1345 . 1989Refusal of service cannot be predicated solely because of race." 53 Wash.App. at 210 , 765 P.2d at 1345 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Wood v. . American Fire Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences1937Co., 149 N. Y. 382 , 44 N. E. 80, 81 , 52 Am. 1937Co., 149 N. Y. 382 , 44 N. E. 80, 81 , 52 Am. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Luttrell v. . Martin
green
1 sentence1928A forceful statement of the justification of this rule is found in the case of Tinsley v. Hoskins, 111 N. C. 340 , 16 S. E. 325 , quoting from Bank v. Sevier et al., 14 Fed. 662 : “Such a provision is a stipulation for a penalty forfeiture, tends to the oppression of the debtor, and to encourage litigation, is a cover for usury, is without any valid consideration to support it, contrary to public policy, and void.” The note at bar having been executed in West Virginia and payable in Virginia, the precise question presented for determination is whether the provision of the note for attorney’s f | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Tinsley v. . Hoskins
neutral
1 sentence1928A forceful statement of the justification of this rule is found in the case of Tinsley v. Hoskins, 111 N. C. 340 , 16 S. E. 325 , quoting from Bank v. Sevier et al., 14 Fed. 662 : “Such a provision is a stipulation for a penalty forfeiture, tends to the oppression of the debtor, and to encourage litigation, is a cover for usury, is without any valid consideration to support it, contrary to public policy, and void.” The note at bar having been executed in West Virginia and payable in Virginia, the precise question presented for determination is whether the provision of the note for attorney’s f | 1 | 1928–1928 |
R. S. Oglesby Co. v. Bank of New York
neutral
1 sentence1928Oglesby Co. et al. v. Bank of New York, 114 Va. 663 ; Colley v. Summers Parrott Hardware Co., 119 Va. 439 , and cases cited. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Colley v. Summers Parrott Hardware Co.
neutral
1 sentence1928Oglesby Co. et al. v. Bank of New York, 114 Va. 663 ; Colley v. Summers Parrott Hardware Co., 119 Va. 439 , and cases cited. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Sevier
green
1 sentence1928A forceful statement of the justification of this rule is found in the case of Tinsley v. Hoskins, 111 N. C. 340 , 16 S. E. 325 , quoting from Bank v. Sevier et al., 14 Fed. 662 : “Such a provision is a stipulation for a penalty forfeiture, tends to the oppression of the debtor, and to encourage litigation, is a cover for usury, is without any valid consideration to support it, contrary to public policy, and void.” The note at bar having been executed in West Virginia and payable in Virginia, the precise question presented for determination is whether the provision of the note for attorney’s f | 1 | 1928–1928 |
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.