Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2024 2 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. Pettreygreen2 sentences2013We find that the trial court properly admitted the testimony of Ms. Hasty, subject to this Court’s holding in Syllabus Point 9 of State v. Pettrey, 209 W.Va. 449 , 549 S.E.2d 323 (2001), which states, When a social worker, counselor, or psychologist is trained in play therapy and thereafter treats a child abuse victim with play therapy, the therapist’s testimony is admissible at trial under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rule, West Virginia Rule of Evidence 803(4), if the declarant’s motive in making the statement is consistent with the purpose of promoting treatme 2013We find that the trial court properly admitted the testimony of Ms. Hasty, subject to this Court’s holding in Syllabus Point 9 of State v. Pettrey, 209 W.Va. 449 , 549 S.E.2d 323 (2001), which states, When a social worker, counselor, or psychologist is trained in play therapy and thereafter treats a child abuse victim with play therapy, the therapist’s testimony is admissible at trial under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rule, West Virginia Rule of Evidence 803(4), if the declarant’s motive in making the statement is consistent with the purpose of promoting treatme | 1 | 3 |
State v. Shrewsburygreen2 sentences2007The testimony is inadmissible if the evidence was gathered strictly for investigative or forensic purposes. 209 W.Va. at 452 , 549 S.E.2d at 326 (emphasis supplied); see also State v. Shrewsbury, 213 W.Va. 327, 329-30 , 582 S.E.2d 774, 776-77 (2003). 2007The testimony is inadmissible if the evidence was gathered strictly for investigative or forensic purposes. 209 W.Va. at 452 , 549 S.E.2d at 326 (emphasis supplied); see also State v. Shrewsbury, 213 W.Va. 327, 329-30 , 582 S.E.2d 774, 776-77 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Puckett v. Porsche Cars of North America, Inc.green1 sentence2004See Puckett v. Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., 976 F.Supp. 957, 963 (D.Nev.1997) (finding statements made to a physical therapist admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 803(4)); Galli v. Reutter, 148 Mich.App. 313 , 384 N.W.2d 43, 46 (1986) (finding statements made to physical therapist were admissible under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception set forth in Mich. R. | 1 | 1 |
Galli v. Reuttergreen2 sentences2004See Puckett v. Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., 976 F.Supp. 957, 963 (D.Nev.1997) (finding statements made to a physical therapist admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 803(4)); Galli v. Reutter, 148 Mich.App. 313 , 384 N.W.2d 43, 46 (1986) (finding statements made to physical therapist were admissible under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception set forth in Mich. R. 2004See Puckett v. Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., 976 F.Supp. 957, 963 (D.Nev.1997) (finding statements made to a physical therapist admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 803(4)); Galli v. Reutter, 148 Mich.App. 313 , 384 N.W.2d 43, 46 (1986) (finding statements made to physical therapist were admissible under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception set forth in Mich. R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Loukgreen1 sentence2001This Court previously said that "`[r]ulings on the admissibility of evidence are largely within a trial court's sound discretion and should not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion.' State v. Louk, 171 W.Va. 639, 643 , 301 S.E.2d 596, 599 (1983)." Syllabus Point 2, State v. Peyatt, 173 W.Va. 317 , 315 S.E.2d 574 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Smithgreen1 sentence2001This Court previously said that “‘[r]ulings on the admissibility of evidence are largely within a trial court’s sound discretion and should not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion.’ State v. Louk, 171 W.Va. 639, 643 , 301 S.E.2d 696, 599 (1983).” Syllabus Point 2, State v. Peyatt, 173 W.Va. 317 , 315 S.E.2d 574 (1983). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
1 sentence2024The test for reliability found in Ohio v. Roberts was later rejected in the context of testimonial hearsay in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), discussed infra. 5 When a social worker, counselor, or psychologist is trained in play therapy and thereafter treats a child abuse victim with play therapy, the therapist’s testimony is admissible at trial under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rule, West Virginia Rule of Evidence 803(4), if the declarant’s motive in making the statement is consistent with the purposes of promoting treatment and the content of the s | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Payne
green
1 sentence2023Va. 602 , 694 S.E.2d 935 (2010), we noted that such statements in medical records are admissible: 4 When a child sexual abuse or assault victim is examined by a forensic nurse trained in sexual assault examination, the nurse’s testimony regarding statements made by the child during the examination is admissible at trial under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rule, West Virginia Rule of Evidence 803(4), if the declarant’s motive for making the statement was consistent with the purposes of promoting treatment and the content of the statement was reasonably relied upon | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Peyatt
green
2 sentences2001This Court previously said that "`[r]ulings on the admissibility of evidence are largely within a trial court's sound discretion and should not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion.' State v. Louk, 171 W.Va. 639, 643 , 301 S.E.2d 596, 599 (1983)." Syllabus Point 2, State v. Peyatt, 173 W.Va. 317 , 315 S.E.2d 574 (1983). 2001This Court previously said that "`[r]ulings on the admissibility of evidence are largely within a trial court's sound discretion and should not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion.' State v. Louk, 171 W.Va. 639, 643 , 301 S.E.2d 596, 599 (1983)." Syllabus Point 2, State v. Peyatt, 173 W.Va. 317 , 315 S.E.2d 574 (1983). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Louk
green
2 sentences2001This Court previously said that “‘[r]ulings on the admissibility of evidence are largely within a trial court’s sound discretion and should not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion.’ State v. Louk, 171 W.Va. 639, 643 , 301 S.E.2d 696, 599 (1983).” Syllabus Point 2, State v. Peyatt, 173 W.Va. 317 , 315 S.E.2d 574 (1983). 2001This Court previously said that "`[r]ulings on the admissibility of evidence are largely within a trial court's sound discretion and should not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion.' State v. Louk, 171 W.Va. 639, 643 , 301 S.E.2d 596, 599 (1983)." Syllabus Point 2, State v. Peyatt, 173 W.Va. 317 , 315 S.E.2d 574 (1983). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.