6 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1950–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Estate of Verba Ex Rel. Nolan v. Ghapherygreen2 sentences2016Accord syl. pt. 6, Verba v. Ghaphery, 210 W.Va. 30 , 552 S.E.2d 406 (2001). 2016Accord syl. pt. 6, Verba v. Ghaphery, 210 W.Va. 30 , 552 S.E.2d 406 (2001). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sally-Mike Properties v. Yokum
green
2 sentences2016However, syllabus point 4 of Sally-Mike Properties v. Yokum, 179 W.Va. 48 , 365 S.E.2d 246 (1986), holds: Bringing or defending an action to promote or protect one’s economic or property interests does not per se constitute bad faith, vexatious, wanton or oppressive conduct within the meaning of the exceptional rule in equity authorizing an award to the prevailing litigant of his or her reasonable attorney’s fees as “costs” of the action. 2016However, syllabus point 4 of Sally-Mike Properties v. Yokum, 179 W.Va. 48 , 365 S.E.2d 246 (1986), holds: Bringing or defending an action to promote or protect one’s economic or property interests does not per se constitute bad faith, vexatious, wanton or oppressive conduct within the meaning of the exceptional rule in equity authorizing an award to the prevailing litigant of his or her reasonable attorney’s fees as “costs” of the action. | 4 | 1991–2016 |
Yost v. Fuscaldo
green
2 sentences2015Pt. 6, Yost v. Fuscaldo, 185 W.Va. 493 , 408 S.E.2d 72 (1991). 2015Pt. 6, Yost v. Fuscaldo, 185 W.Va. 493 , 408 S.E.2d 72 (1991). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United Dispatch, Inc. v. E. J. Albrecht Co.
green
2 sentences1961Before a stranger can avail himself of the exceptional privilege of sning for a breach of an agreement, to which he is not a party, he must, at least show that it was intended for his direct benefit. * # ” This language was contained in the contract construed by this Court in United Dispatch v. Albrecht Co., 135 W. 1961Va. 34 , 62 S.E. 2d 289 : The contractor “shall be responsible for all damages to persons that occur as a result of his fault or negligence in connection with the prosecution of the work. * # * the contractor shall be responsible for all loss or destruction of or damage to property that occurs as a result of his fault or negligence in connection with the prosecution of the work, * * * ” In that case this Court held that a third party who was damaged as a result of the construction work of the contractor was not entitled to recover and in the opinion said :“***we can reach no conclusion except | 1 | 1961–1961 |
German Alliance Insurance v. Home Water Supply Co.
green
1 sentence1950Co. v. Home Water Supply Co., 226 U. S. 350 , 57 L. ed. 195, 33 S. Ct. 32 , in discussing the principle here considered, used the following language: “Before a stranger can avail himself of the exceptional privilege of suing for a breach of an agreement, to which he is not a party, he must, at least, show that it was intended for his direct benefit.” See United States v. C. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.