6 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2017 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. Osakalumigreen1 sentence2017See State v. Osakalumi, 194 W. | 1 | 1 |
McNeel v. Union Pacific R. Co.green2 sentences2015Co., 276 Neb. 143, 156 , 753 N.W.2d 321, 332 (2008) (“In Nebraska, die proper remedy for [intentional] spoliation of evidence is an adverse inference instruction.”); State v. Davlin, 263 Neb. 283, 302 , 639 N.W.2d 631, 649 (2002) ("an instruction on the inference that may be drawn from spoliation of evidence is appropriate only where substantial evidence exists to support findings that the evidence had been in existence, in the possession or under the control of the party against whom the inference may be drawn; that -the evidence would'have been admissible at trial; and that the party respons 2015Co., 276 Neb. 143, 156 , 753 N.W.2d 321, 332 (2008) (“In Nebraska, die proper remedy for [intentional] spoliation of evidence is an adverse inference instruction.”); State v. Davlin, 263 Neb. 283, 302 , 639 N.W.2d 631, 649 (2002) ("an instruction on the inference that may be drawn from spoliation of evidence is appropriate only where substantial evidence exists to support findings that the evidence had been in existence, in the possession or under the control of the party against whom the inference may be drawn; that -the evidence would'have been admissible at trial; and that the party respons | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davlingreen2 sentences2015Co., 276 Neb. 143, 156 , 753 N.W.2d 321, 332 (2008) (“In Nebraska, die proper remedy for [intentional] spoliation of evidence is an adverse inference instruction.”); State v. Davlin, 263 Neb. 283, 302 , 639 N.W.2d 631, 649 (2002) ("an instruction on the inference that may be drawn from spoliation of evidence is appropriate only where substantial evidence exists to support findings that the evidence had been in existence, in the possession or under the control of the party against whom the inference may be drawn; that -the evidence would'have been admissible at trial; and that the party respons 2015Co., 276 Neb. 143, 156 , 753 N.W.2d 321, 332 (2008) (“In Nebraska, die proper remedy for [intentional] spoliation of evidence is an adverse inference instruction.”); State v. Davlin, 263 Neb. 283, 302 , 639 N.W.2d 631, 649 (2002) ("an instruction on the inference that may be drawn from spoliation of evidence is appropriate only where substantial evidence exists to support findings that the evidence had been in existence, in the possession or under the control of the party against whom the inference may be drawn; that -the evidence would'have been admissible at trial; and that the party respons | 1 | 1 |
MOYERS BY AND THROUGH MOYERS v. Ford Motor Co.green1 sentence1999Accord Moyers v. Ford Motor Co., 941 F.Supp. 883, 885 (E.D.Mo.1996); Shaffer v. RWP Group, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 19, 25 (E.D.N.Y.1996); Baliotis v. McNeil, 870 F.Supp. 1285, 1289 (M.D.Pa.1994); Anderson v. National R.R. | 1 | 1 |
Baliotis v. McNeilgreen1 sentence1999Accord Moyers v. Ford Motor Co., 941 F.Supp. 883, 885 (E.D.Mo.1996); Shaffer v. RWP Group, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 19, 25 (E.D.N.Y.1996); Baliotis v. McNeil, 870 F.Supp. 1285, 1289 (M.D.Pa.1994); Anderson v. National R.R. | 1 | 1 |
Shaffer v. RWP Group, Inc.green1 sentence1999Accord Moyers v. Ford Motor Co., 941 F.Supp. 883, 885 (E.D.Mo.1996); Shaffer v. RWP Group, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 19, 25 (E.D.N.Y.1996); Baliotis v. McNeil, 870 F.Supp. 1285, 1289 (M.D.Pa.1994); Anderson v. National R.R. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hannah v. Heeter
green
2 sentences2007We later noted in Hannah v. Heeter, 213 W.Va. 704 , 584 S.E.2d 560 (2003), that an adverse inference instruction and sanctions attainable under the provisions of Rule 37 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure are the sole remedies for correcting the actions of a party who negligently fails in performing a duty of preserving relevant evidence. 2007We later noted in Hannah v. Heeter, 213 W.Va. 704 , 584 S.E.2d 560 (2003), that an adverse inference instruction and sanctions attainable under the provisions of Rule 37 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure are the sole remedies for correcting the actions of a party who negligently fails in performing a duty of preserving relevant evidence. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Tracy v. Cottrell
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 371 , 524 S.E.2d at 887 . 2007Id. at 371 , 524 S.E.2d at 887 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Shreve v. Warren Assoc., Inc.
green
2 sentences2003“Rule 37 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure is designed to permit the use of sanctions against a party who refuses to comply with the discovery rules, i.e., Rules 26 through 36.” Syllabus Point 1, Shreve v. Warren Assoc., Inc., 177 W.Va. 600 , 355 S.E.2d 389 (1987). 2003“Rule 37 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure is designed to permit the use of sanctions against a party who refuses to comply with the discovery rules, i.e., Rules 26 through 36.” Syllabus Point 1, Shreve v. Warren Assoc., Inc., 177 W.Va. 600 , 355 S.E.2d 389 (1987). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Eric Esher Schmid v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation Eric Schmid
green
2 sentences1999Under one test, 6 adopted by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Schmid v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76 (3d Cir.1994), a trial court must perform the following analysis in making a determination of whether to give an adverse inference instruction or impose other sanctions on a party because of spoliation of evidence: (1) determine the degree of fault of the party who altered or destroyed the evidence; (2) determine the degree of prejudice suffered by the opposing party; and (3) determine the availability of a lesser sanction that will protect the opposing party’s rights and dete 1999Under one test, 6 adopted by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Schmid v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76 (3d Cir.1994), a trial court must perform the following analysis in making a determination of whether to give an adverse inference instruction or impose other sanctions on a party because of spoliation of evidence: (1) determine the degree of fault of the party who altered or destroyed the evidence; (2) determine the degree of prejudice suffered by the opposing party; and (3) determine the availability of a lesser sanction that will protect the opposing party’s rights and dete | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.