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.
6 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Adilao Ortiz v. James Yatesgreen2 sentences2013See United States v. Roussel, 705 F.3d 184, 194 (5th Cir. 2013) ("The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is violated if the defendant [can] show that a reasonable jury might have had a significantly different impression of the witness’s credibility if defense counsel had been allowed to pursue the questioning." (internal quotations and citation omitted)); Ortiz v. Yates, 704 F.3d 1026, 1037 (9th Cir.2012) (“The whole point of the effective, permissible cross-examination protected by the Confrontation Clause is to diminish the witness’ credibility with the jury and thereby render a convicti 2013See United States v. Roussel, 705 F.3d 184, 194 (5th Cir. 2013) (“The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause is violated if the defendant [can] show that a reasonable jury might have had a significantly different impression of the witness’s credibility if defense counsel had been allowed to pursue the questioning.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)); Ortiz v. Yates, 704 F.3d 1026, 1037 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The whole point of the effective, permissible cross-examination protected by the Confrontation Clause is to diminish the witness’ credibility with the jury and thereby render a convict | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Michael Rousselgreen2 sentences2013See United States v. Roussel, 705 F.3d 184, 194 (5th Cir. 2013) ("The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is violated if the defendant [can] show that a reasonable jury might have had a significantly different impression of the witness’s credibility if defense counsel had been allowed to pursue the questioning." (internal quotations and citation omitted)); Ortiz v. Yates, 704 F.3d 1026, 1037 (9th Cir.2012) (“The whole point of the effective, permissible cross-examination protected by the Confrontation Clause is to diminish the witness’ credibility with the jury and thereby render a convicti 2013See United States v. Roussel, 705 F.3d 184, 194 (5th Cir. 2013) (“The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause is violated if the defendant [can] show that a reasonable jury might have had a significantly different impression of the witness’s credibility if defense counsel had been allowed to pursue the questioning.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)); Ortiz v. Yates, 704 F.3d 1026, 1037 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The whole point of the effective, permissible cross-examination protected by the Confrontation Clause is to diminish the witness’ credibility with the jury and thereby render a convict | 3 | 3 |
Mayhorn v. Logan Medical Foundationgreen1 sentence2025Id. at 46, 454 S.E.2d at 91 (internal quotation omitted) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Skyline Cab, Inc.green2 sentences2016It is axiomatic that “a witness may be impeached on the basis of prior inconsistent actions.”59 After plaintiff’s counsel 57 Stear testified he would use his two-hour interstate drive to and from work as a time to “relax and maybe pray.” He also asserted that his wife’s sisters are both police officers, and if he had “pulled a shenanigan” like he was accused of, his wife would “have her sisters take care of me.” 58 In Moore v. Skyline Cab, Inc., 134 W.Va. 121, 131 , 59 S.E.2d 437, 443 (1950), a tort defendant testified “he was by nature a careful driver and . . . he always observed speed limit 2016It is axiomatic that “a witness may be impeached on the basis of prior inconsistent actions.”59 After plaintiff’s counsel 57 Stear testified he would use his two-hour interstate drive to and from work as a time to “relax and maybe pray.” He also asserted that his wife’s sisters are both police officers, and if he had “pulled a shenanigan” like he was accused of, his wife would “have her sisters take care of me.” 58 In Moore v. Skyline Cab, Inc., 134 W.Va. 121, 131 , 59 S.E.2d 437, 443 (1950), a tort defendant testified “he was by nature a careful driver and . . . he always observed speed limit | 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. Quinn
green
2 sentences2013See United States v. Roussel, 705 F.3d 184, 194 (5th Cir. 2013) (“The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause is violated if the defendant [can] show that a reasonable jury might have had a significantly different impression of the witness’s credibility if defense counsel had been allowed to pursue the questioning.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)); Ortiz v. Yates, 704 F.3d 1026, 1037 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The whole point of the effective, permissible cross-examination protected by the Confrontation Clause is to diminish the witness’ credibility with the jury and thereby render a convict 2013See United States v. Roussel, 705 F.3d 184, 194 (5th Cir. 2013) (“The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause is violated if the defendant [can] show that a reasonable jury might have had a significantly different impression of the witness’s credibility if defense counsel had been allowed to pursue the questioning.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)); Ortiz v. Yates, 704 F.3d 1026, 1037 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The whole point of the effective, permissible cross-examination protected by the Confrontation Clause is to diminish the witness’ credibility with the jury and thereby render a convict | 2 | 2013–2013 |
James v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1996In reversing the state court’s decision, the United States Supreme Court refused to “expand[ ] the scope of the impeachment exception to permit prosecutors to use illegally obtained evidence to impeach the credibility of defense witness.” Id. at 313 , 110 S.Ct. at 652 . 1996In reversing the state court’s decision, the United States Supreme Court refused to “expand[ ] the scope of the impeachment exception to permit prosecutors to use illegally obtained evidence to impeach the credibility of defense witness.” Id. at 313 , 110 S.Ct. at 652 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.