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 1982–2022 1 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. Clarkgreen2 sentences1994In our earlier case of State v. Clark, 171 W.Va. 74, 79 , 297 S.E.2d 849, 854 (1982), we offered the following explanation as to why compliance with a similar procedure was important: "Basing its decision on the preponderance standard, the trial court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the admissibility of the evidence. 1994In our earlier case of State v. Clark, 171 W.Va. 74, 79 , 297 S.E.2d 849, 854 (1982), we offered the following explanation as to why compliance with a similar procedure was important: "Basing its decision on the preponderance standard, the trial court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the admissibility of the evidence. | 2 | 2 |
In Re West Virginia Rezulin Litigationgreen1 sentence2022See Rezulin at 72, 585 S.E.2d at 72 (“A conclusion on the issue of predominance requires an evaluation of the legal issues and the proof needed to establish them. . . . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Garnergreen1 sentence1994We believe that the preponderance standard is adequate to guarantee that before admitting Rule 404(b) evidence, the trial court “will *158 have found it more likely than not that the technical issues and policy concerns addressed by the Rules have been duly considered.” People v. Garner, 806 P.2d 366, 370 (Colo.1991). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Boley v. Cline
green
2 sentences2002Former Justice Cleckley concurred in Boley , indicating that he believed the evidence may have been insufficient to prove intoxication, even under a preponderance standard. 193 W.Va. at 315 , 456 S.E.2d at 42 . 2002Former Justice Cleckley concurred in Boley , indicating that he believed the evidence may have been insufficient to prove intoxication, even under a preponderance standard. 193 W.Va. at 315 , 456 S.E.2d at 42 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Dean v. West Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences2002In Dean v. W.Va, D.M.V., 195 W.Va. 70 , 464 S.E.2d 589 (1995), we also upheld a license suspension that was based in part on HGN evidence. 2002In Dean v. W.Va, D.M.V., 195 W.Va. 70 , 464 S.E.2d 589 (1995), we also upheld a license suspension that was based in part on HGN evidence. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Virginia Fire & Marine Insurance v. Hogue
green
2 sentences1986Co. v. Hogue, 105 Va. 355 , 54 S.E. 8 (1906) our colleagues on the Supreme Court of Virginia held: “In a case, as in this, where the defense made to the action involves the charge of an unlawful act, fraud, or even bad faith, a preponderance of the evidence, as in any other civil case, is sufficient to sustain the charge, provided the proof is clear and strong enough to preponderate over the general and reasonable presumption that men are honest and do not ordinarily commit fraud, or act in bad faith; i.e., the preponderance rule continues to operate in such cases, the adverse presumption in f 1986Co. v. Hogue, 105 Va. 355 , 54 S.E. 8 (1906) our colleagues on the Supreme Court of Virginia held: “In a case, as in this, where the defense made to the action involves the charge of an unlawful act, fraud, or even bad faith, a preponderance of the evidence, as in any other civil case, is sufficient to sustain the charge, provided the proof is clear and strong enough to preponderate over the general and reasonable presumption that men are honest and do not ordinarily commit fraud, or act in bad faith; i.e., the preponderance rule continues to operate in such cases, the adverse presumption in f | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Vance
green
2 sentences1982In Syllabus Point 3, in part, of State v. Vance, 162 W.Va. 467 , 250 S.E.2d 146 (1978), we confirmed this point and also said that a trial court’s decision on this matter would not be disturbed “unless it is plainly wrong or clearly against the weight of the evidence.” We have recognized the preponderance rule in regard to proving the legality of a seizure of evidence in the single Syllabus of State v. Hacker, 158 W.Va. 182 , 209 S.E.2d 569 (1974): “Where the defendant in a criminal case makes a timely objection to the introduction of evidence seized during a warrantless search, it is incumben 1982In Syllabus Point 3, in part, of State v. Vance, 162 W.Va. 467 , 250 S.E.2d 146 (1978), we confirmed this point and also said that a trial court’s decision on this matter would not be disturbed “unless it is plainly wrong or clearly against the weight of the evidence.” We have recognized the preponderance rule in regard to proving the legality of a seizure of evidence in the single Syllabus of State v. Hacker, 158 W.Va. 182 , 209 S.E.2d 569 (1974): “Where the defendant in a criminal case makes a timely objection to the introduction of evidence seized during a warrantless search, it is incumben | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Hacker
green
2 sentences1982In Syllabus Point 3, in part, of State v. Vance, 162 W.Va. 467 , 250 S.E.2d 146 (1978), we confirmed this point and also said that a trial court’s decision on this matter would not be disturbed “unless it is plainly wrong or clearly against the weight of the evidence.” We have recognized the preponderance rule in regard to proving the legality of a seizure of evidence in the single Syllabus of State v. Hacker, 158 W.Va. 182 , 209 S.E.2d 569 (1974): “Where the defendant in a criminal case makes a timely objection to the introduction of evidence seized during a warrantless search, it is incumben 1982In Syllabus Point 3, in part, of State v. Vance, 162 W.Va. 467 , 250 S.E.2d 146 (1978), we confirmed this point and also said that a trial court’s decision on this matter would not be disturbed “unless it is plainly wrong or clearly against the weight of the evidence.” We have recognized the preponderance rule in regard to proving the legality of a seizure of evidence in the single Syllabus of State v. Hacker, 158 W.Va. 182 , 209 S.E.2d 569 (1974): “Where the defendant in a criminal case makes a timely objection to the introduction of evidence seized during a warrantless search, it is incumben | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.