6 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1942–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
cluster 687361green1 sentence2024See id.; see also United States v. Robertson, 45 F.3d 1423, 1432-33 (10th Cir. 1995) (reversing and remanding a conviction when the waiver lacked the signature of the defendant and the trial court “never inquired as to the circumstances surrounding the waiver and no discussion was ever held in the presence of [the defendant] regarding her decision to waive the right to trial by jury”). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hinkle
green
1 sentence2019Pt. 1, in part, State v. Hinkle, 200 W. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Covington v. Smith
green
2 sentences2019There, we were “firmly left with the conviction that an error ha[d] been committed as we [were] not convinced that the inactivity . . . was so egregious as to necessitate the sanction of dismissal.” Id. at 323 , 582 S.E.2d at 770 . 2019There, we were “firmly left with the conviction that an error ha[d] been committed as we [were] not convinced that the inactivity . . . was so egregious as to necessitate the sanction of dismissal.” Id. at 323 , 582 S.E.2d at 770 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Hayes
green
2 sentences2002This Court based its decision to affirm the conviction on the rule stated in Syllabus Point 9 of State v. Hayes, 136 W.Va. 199 , 67 S.E.2d 9 (1951) which provides: The general rule, inhibiting allowance of a new trial for matter constituting a principal cause of challenge to a juror, existing before the juror was elected and sworn, unknown to the complaining party until after verdict, not disclosed on a thorough voir dire examination, and undiscoverable by the exercise of ordinary diligence, unless it appears from the whole case that the complainant suffered injustice by reason of the disquali 2002This Court based its decision to affirm the conviction on the rule stated in Syllabus Point 9 of State v. Hayes, 136 W.Va. 199 , 67 S.E.2d 9 (1951) which provides: The general rule, inhibiting allowance of a new trial for matter constituting a principal cause of challenge to a juror, existing before the juror was elected and sworn, unknown to the complaining party until after verdict, not disclosed on a thorough voir dire examination, and undiscoverable by the exercise of ordinary diligence, unless it appears from the whole case that the complainant suffered injustice by reason of the disquali | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Jordan v. Roberts
green
2 sentences1988Jordan v. Roberts, 161 W.Va. 750 , 246 S.E.2d 259 (1978). 1988Jordan v. Roberts, 161 W.Va. 750 , 246 S.E.2d 259 (1978). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Stout
green
1 sentence1942Va. 398 , 180 S. E. 443 , this Court held that the reading of the indictment in a previous conviction was error, since it was necessary only to introduce a judgment to show a previous sentence to the penitentiary and identify the accused as the person formerly sentenced. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
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.