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 1986–2026 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. Mechlinggreen2 sentences2026Va. 366 , 633 S.E.2d 311 (2006) (holding that the Confrontation Clauses contained within the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and within Article III Section 14 of the West Virginia Constitution bar the admission of testimonial statements 11 made by a witness who does not appear at trial). 2013See also State v. Kennedy, 229 W.Va. 756 , 735 S.E.2d 905 (2012) (Confrontation Clause violated where Medical Examiner permitted to testify as to surrogate’s autopsy findings); Syllabus Point 6, State v. Mechling, 219 W.Va. 366 , 633 S.E.2d 311 (2006) (“Pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 [2004], the Confrontation Clause contained within the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution bar the admission of a testimonial statement by a witness who does not appear at trial, unless | 1 | 2 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2013See also State v. Kennedy, 229 W.Va. 756 , 735 S.E.2d 905 (2012) (Confrontation Clause violated where Medical Examiner permitted to testify as to surrogate’s autopsy findings); Syllabus Point 6, State v. Mechling, 219 W.Va. 366 , 633 S.E.2d 311 (2006) (“Pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 [2004], the Confrontation Clause contained within the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution bar the admission of a testimonial statement by a witness who does not appear at trial, unless 2013See also State v. Kennedy, 229 W.Va. 756 , 735 S.E.2d 905 (2012) (Confrontation Clause violated where Medical Examiner permitted to testify as to surrogate’s autopsy findings); Syllabus Point 6, State v. Mechling, 219 W.Va. 366 , 633 S.E.2d 311 (2006) (“Pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 [2004], the Confrontation Clause contained within the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution bar the admission of a testimonial statement by a witness who does not appear at trial, unless | 1 | 2 |
State of West Virginia v. Lamar Dorseygreen2 sentences2018Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that he was more than a “casual visitor” in Mr. Williams’s apartment and hence is entitled to challenge the evidence pursuant to syllabus point 1 of State v. Adkins, 176 W.Va. 613 , 346 S.E.2d 762 (1986)(“A defendant who is more than a casual visitor to an apartment or dwelling in which illegal drugs have been seized has the right under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution to challenge the search and seizure of illegal drugs which he is accused of possessing.”) We clarified this 2018Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that he was more than a “casual visitor” in Mr. Williams’s apartment and hence is entitled to challenge the evidence pursuant to syllabus point 1 of State v. Adkins, 176 W.Va. 613 , 346 S.E.2d 762 (1986)(“A defendant who is more than a casual visitor to an apartment or dwelling in which illegal drugs have been seized has the right under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution to challenge the search and seizure of illegal drugs which he is accused of possessing.”) We clarified this | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2013See also State v. Kennedy, 229 W.Va. 756 , 735 S.E.2d 905 (2012) (Confrontation Clause violated where Medical Examiner permitted to testify as to surrogate’s autopsy findings); Syllabus Point 6, State v. Mechling, 219 W.Va. 366 , 633 S.E.2d 311 (2006) (“Pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 [2004], the Confrontation Clause contained within the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution bar the admission of a testimonial statement by a witness who does not appear at trial, unless 2013See also State v. Kennedy, 229 W.Va. 756 , 735 S.E.2d 905 (2012) (Confrontation Clause violated where Medical Examiner permitted to testify as to surrogate’s autopsy findings); Syllabus Point 6, State v. Mechling, 219 W.Va. 366 , 633 S.E.2d 311 (2006) (“Pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 [2004], the Confrontation Clause contained within the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution bar the admission of a testimonial statement by a witness who does not appear at trial, unless | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State of West Virginia Terry Allen Blevinsgreen2 sentences2013See also State v. Kennedy, 229 W.Va. 756 , 735 S.E.2d 905 (2012) (Confrontation Clause violated where Medical Examiner permitted to testify as to surrogate’s autopsy findings); Syllabus Point 6, State v. Mechling, 219 W.Va. 366 , 633 S.E.2d 311 (2006) (“Pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 [2004], the Confrontation Clause contained within the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution bar the admission of a testimonial statement by a witness who does not appear at trial, unless 2013See also State v. Kennedy, 229 W.Va. 756 , 735 S.E.2d 905 (2012) (Confrontation Clause violated where Medical Examiner permitted to testify as to surrogate’s autopsy findings); Syllabus Point 6, State v. Mechling, 219 W.Va. 366 , 633 S.E.2d 311 (2006) (“Pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 [2004], the Confrontation Clause contained within the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution bar the admission of a testimonial statement by a witness who does not appear at trial, unless | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Adkins
green
2 sentences2018Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that he was more than a “casual visitor” in Mr. Williams’s apartment and hence is entitled to challenge the evidence pursuant to syllabus point 1 of State v. Adkins, 176 W.Va. 613 , 346 S.E.2d 762 (1986)(“A defendant who is more than a casual visitor to an apartment or dwelling in which illegal drugs have been seized has the right under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution to challenge the search and seizure of illegal drugs which he is accused of possessing.”) We clarified this 2018Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that he was more than a “casual visitor” in Mr. Williams’s apartment and hence is entitled to challenge the evidence pursuant to syllabus point 1 of State v. Adkins, 176 W.Va. 613 , 346 S.E.2d 762 (1986)(“A defendant who is more than a casual visitor to an apartment or dwelling in which illegal drugs have been seized has the right under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution to challenge the search and seizure of illegal drugs which he is accused of possessing.”) We clarified this | 3 | 2014–2018 |
Bennett v. Warner
yellow
2 sentences1994In Bennett v. Warner, 179 W.Va. 742 , 372 S.E.2d 920 (1988), we set out in Syllabus Points 1 and 2 the scope of our rule-making authority: “1. 1994In Bennett v. Warner, 179 W.Va. 742 , 372 S.E.2d 920 (1988), we set out in Syllabus Points 1 and 2 the scope of our rule-making authority: “1. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Rakas v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1986Moreover, a casual visitor, who walked into another person's home just before the search and left shortly thereafter, could not object to the legality of the search. 439 U.S. at 142 , 99 S.Ct. at 429-30 , 58 L.Ed.2d at 400 . [5] We believe that under the foregoing United States Supreme Court cases a defendant who is more than a casual visitor to an apartment or dwelling in which illegal drugs have been seized has the right under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution to challenge the search and seizure of the illegal 1986Moreover, a casual visitor, who walked into another person's home just before the search and left shortly thereafter, could not object to the legality of the search. 439 U.S. at 142 , 99 S.Ct. at 429-30 , 58 L.Ed.2d at 400 . [5] We believe that under the foregoing United States Supreme Court cases a defendant who is more than a casual visitor to an apartment or dwelling in which illegal drugs have been seized has the right under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution to challenge the search and seizure of the illegal | 1 | 1986–1986 |