7 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1893–1999 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Chiarellogreen2 sentences1999See State v. Chiarello, 69 N.J.Super. 479 , 174 A.2d 506 (App.Div. 1961). 1999See State v. Chiarello, 69 N.J.Super. 479 , 174 A.2d 506 (App.Div. 1961). | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Baileygreen2 sentences1986Acts ch. 3, is now found at West Virginia Code § 48-4-5 (Supp.1985). 4 .Given this Court’s statement in Bailey v. Bailey, 127 W.Va. 826, 829 , 35 S.E.2d 81, 83 (1945), that, "the parties cannot by contract alter or change the terms of [a divorce] decree," it appears that this limitation on the waiver of child support payments would be mandatory. 1986Acts ch. 3, is now found at West Virginia Code § 48-4-5 (Supp.1985). 4 .Given this Court’s statement in Bailey v. Bailey, 127 W.Va. 826, 829 , 35 S.E.2d 81, 83 (1945), that, "the parties cannot by contract alter or change the terms of [a divorce] decree," it appears that this limitation on the waiver of child support payments would be mandatory. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Lawrence Campbell, Jr.
green
2 sentences1984Furthermore, we do not equate a general request for counsel at the initial appearance before a magistrate as foreclosing in all cases the right of police officials to initiate a further discussion with the defendant to determine if he is willing to waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel for purposes of procuring a confession. 24 A limitation on this rule is illustrated by United States v. Campbell, 721 F.2d 578 (6th Cir.1983), where the interrogating officer had appeared with the defendant before the magistrate and had heard him request counsel. 1984Furthermore, we do not equate a general request for counsel at the initial appearance before a magistrate as foreclosing in all cases the right of police officials to initiate a further discussion with the defendant to determine if he is willing to waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel for purposes of procuring a confession. [24] A limitation on this rule is illustrated by United States v. Campbell, 721 F.2d 578 (6th Cir.1983), where the interrogating officer had appeared with the defendant before the magistrate and had heard him request counsel. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Peloso v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1982In this manner, the literal language of the limitation provision is given effect; the insured is not penalized for the time consumed by the company while it pursues its contractual and statutory rights to have a proof of loss, call the insured in for examination, and consider what amount to pay; and the central idea of the limitation provision is preserved since an insured will have only 12 months to institute suit.” 56 N.J. at 521 , 267 A.2d 501 -02. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Bonnert v. Pennsylvania Ins.
green
1 sentence1898Insurance Co. v. Peck, 133 Ill., 220 , ( 24 N. E. 538 ); Bonnert v. Insurance Co., 129 Pa. St., 558, ( 18 Atl. 552 ); Insurance Co. v. McGregor, 63 Tex., 399; Bish v. Insurance Co., 69 Iowa, 184 , ( 28 N. W. 553 ); Martin v. Insurance Co., 44 N. J. | 1 | 1898–1898 |
Peoria Marine & Fire Insurance v. Whitehill
green
1 sentence1898And it cites a case in 25 Ill., 466 (Insurance Co. v. White hill), holding the same. | 1 | 1898–1898 |
Allemania Fire Insurance v. Peck
green
2 sentences1898Insurance Co. v. Peck, 133 Ill., 220 , ( 24 N. E. 538 ); Bonnert v. Insurance Co., 129 Pa. St., 558, ( 18 Atl. 552 ); Insurance Co. v. McGregor, 63 Tex., 399; Bish v. Insurance Co., 69 Iowa, 184 , ( 28 N. W. 553 ); Martin v. Insurance Co., 44 N. J. 1898Insurance Co. v. Peck, 133 Ill., 220 , ( 24 N. E. 538 ); Bonnert v. Insurance Co., 129 Pa. St., 558, ( 18 Atl. 552 ); Insurance Co. v. McGregor, 63 Tex., 399; Bish v. Insurance Co., 69 Iowa, 184 , ( 28 N. W. 553 ); Martin v. Insurance Co., 44 N. J. | 1 | 1898–1898 |
Illinois Live Stock Insurance v. Baker
green
2 sentences1898After finishing this opinion, I meet with the case of Insurance Co. v. Baker, 153 Ill., 240 , ( 38 N. E. 627 ), meeting the point squarely, holding that “hopes of payment held out to a plaintiff by an insurance company as an inducement not to sue within the time limited in the policy operate as a waiver of the limitation clause,” and that, “when once so waived, the clause will not, after any substantial part of the time is lost, be revived by a statement to the insured that the company is insolvent, and he can make nothing by suit,” and that “after such waiver the case rests upon the regular s 1898After finishing this opinion, I meet with the case of Insurance Co. v. Baker, 153 Ill., 240 , ( 38 N. E. 627 ), meeting the point squarely, holding that “hopes of payment held out to a plaintiff by an insurance company as an inducement not to sue within the time limited in the policy operate as a waiver of the limitation clause,” and that, “when once so waived, the clause will not, after any substantial part of the time is lost, be revived by a statement to the insured that the company is insolvent, and he can make nothing by suit,” and that “after such waiver the case rests upon the regular s | 1 | 1898–1898 |
St. Paul Fire & M. Insurance v. McGregor
neutral
1 sentence1898Insurance Co. v. Peck, 133 Ill., 220 , ( 24 N. E. 538 ); Bonnert v. Insurance Co., 129 Pa. St., 558, ( 18 Atl. 552 ); Insurance Co. v. McGregor, 63 Tex., 399; Bish v. Insurance Co., 69 Iowa, 184 , ( 28 N. W. 553 ); Martin v. Insurance Co., 44 N. J. | 1 | 1898–1898 |
Bish v. Hawkeye Ins.
green
1 sentence1898Insurance Co. v. Peck, 133 Ill., 220 , ( 24 N. E. 538 ); Bonnert v. Insurance Co., 129 Pa. St., 558, ( 18 Atl. 552 ); Insurance Co. v. McGregor, 63 Tex., 399; Bish v. Insurance Co., 69 Iowa, 184 , ( 28 N. W. 553 ); Martin v. Insurance Co., 44 N. J. | 1 | 1898–1898 |
Webster v. Carson
green
1 sentence1898Insurance Co. v. Peck, 133 Ill., 220 , ( 24 N. E. 538 ); Bonnert v. Insurance Co., 129 Pa. St., 558, ( 18 Atl. 552 ); Insurance Co. v. McGregor, 63 Tex., 399; Bish v. Insurance Co., 69 Iowa, 184 , ( 28 N. W. 553 ); Martin v. Insurance Co., 44 N. J. | 1 | 1898–1898 |
State v. Enoch
green
1 sentence1893Some question might be raised whether the acts of 1881 did so repeal that clause on the theory, that the act of 1875 was not a re-enactment of chapter 30 of the Code but an original act, so to speak; whereas the act of 1881 is a reenactment of chapter 30 of the Code; aud that, as the act of 1881 is silent as to the subject of limitations, and so contains nothing in conflict with the limitation clause of the act of 1875, that clause should be held as continuing; and, as repeals by implication can only be allowed where there is plain repugnancy, and where' both acts may stand and be executed, we | 1 | 1893–1893 |
Hall & Co. v. Lyons & Co.
green
1 sentence1893See the following cases on the subject: Hall v. Lyons, 29 W. | 1 | 1893–1893 |
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.