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 1956–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Courtney v. Courtneygreen1 sentence2021Va. 597, 602-03 , 413 S.E.2d 418, 423-24 (1991) (applying Restatement standard to cause of action for infliction of severe emotional distress in the absence of physical injury). | 1 | 1 |
Gilbert v. Korvette's Inc.green2 sentences1991For example, in Gilbert v. Korvette’s, Inc., 457 Pa. 602, 613-615 , 327 A.2d 94, 101-02 (1974), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court discussed the control feature as follows: The Restatement rule, however, disavows the requirement of exclusive control. 1991For example, in Gilbert v. Korvette’s, Inc., 457 Pa. 602, 613-615 , 327 A.2d 94, 101-02 (1974), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court discussed the control feature as follows: The Restatement rule, however, disavows the requirement of exclusive control. | 1 | 1 |
Donald B. Rinsley, M.D. v. Anthony Brandt and William Morrow and Company, Inc., a Corporationgreen2 sentences1984See, e.g., Rinsley v. Brandt, 700 F.2d 1304 ; Varnish v. Best Medium Pub. 1984See, e.g., Rinsley v. Brandt, 700 F.2d 1304 ; Varnish v. Best Medium Pub. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility Authority v. A.B.
green
2 sentences2023Regarding prong (3)—whether the Officers’ acts and omissions were motivated, at least in part, by the motivation to serve DOC—DOC contends that, as a matter of law, they were not because the Officers allegedly engaged in “serious violations of duty which can only equate to actions taken outside the scope of their employment, if true.” But “an employer may be liable for the conduct of an employee, even if the specific conduct is unauthorized or contrary to express orders, so long as the employee is acting within the general scope of his authority and for the benefit of the employer.”69 And, as 2023Regarding prong (3)—whether the Officers’ acts and omissions were motivated, at least in part, by the motivation to serve DOC—DOC contends that, as a matter of law, they were not because the Officers allegedly engaged in “serious violations of duty which can only equate to actions taken outside the scope of their employment, if true.” But “an employer may be liable for the conduct of an employee, even if the specific conduct is unauthorized or contrary to express orders, so long as the employee is acting within the general scope of his authority and for the benefit of the employer.”69 And, as | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Peneschi v. National Steel Corp.
green
2 sentences1989In Peneschi v. National Steel Corp., 170 W.Va. 511 , 295 S.E.2d 1 (1982), this Court looked with favor upon the Restatement’s analysis of problems similar to the ones presented in the present case. 1989In Peneschi v. National Steel Corp., 170 W.Va. 511 , 295 S.E.2d 1 (1982), this Court looked with favor upon the Restatement’s analysis of problems similar to the ones presented in the present case. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New York
green
2 sentences1989This Court indicated in syllabus point 3 of Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New York, 148 W.Va. 160 , 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963), that: A motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law. 1989This Court indicated in syllabus point 3 of Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New York, 148 W.Va. 160 , 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963), that: A motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Lloyd v. S. S. Kresge Co.
green
2 sentences1980It applied the Restatement standard in Lloyd v. S. S. Kresge Co, 85 Wis.2d 296 , 270 N.W.2d 423 (1978). 1980It applied the Restatement standard in Lloyd v. S. S. Kresge Co, 85 Wis.2d 296 , 270 N.W.2d 423 (1978). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
White v. Morton
neutral
1 sentence1956Va. 29 , 171 S. E. 762 , the first syllabus point reads: “Two statutes relating to the same subject should be read together, although they were enacted at different times and the latter makes no reference to the former.” Perhaps it could be stated that the principle that statutes in pari materia should be construed together is only a restatement of the presumption against the implied repeal of statutes. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.