43 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2022 4 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 Ex Rel. Smith v. Scottgreen2 sentences1994Smith v. Scott, 160 W.Va. 730 , 238 S.E.2d 223 (1977); State v. McArdle, 156 W.Va. 409 , 194 S.E.2d 174 (1973), modified on other grounds, State v. Hatfield, 169 W.Va. 191 , 286 S.E.2d 402 (1982). [5] The Syllabus of State v. Beaman, supra , is: "The return of an indictment against a juvenile defendant, while establishing probable cause, does not provide the necessary facts upon which the juvenile court should base its decision as to the propriety of transfer, and it does not preclude the defendant's right to a transfer hearing." [6] A recognized exception to this rule is contained in Syllabus 1994Smith v. Scott, 160 W.Va. 730 , 238 S.E.2d 223 (1977); State v. McArdle, 156 W.Va. 409 , 194 S.E.2d 174 (1973), modified on other grounds, State v. Hatfield, 169 W.Va. 191 , 286 S.E.2d 402 (1982). [5] The Syllabus of State v. Beaman, supra , is: "The return of an indictment against a juvenile defendant, while establishing probable cause, does not provide the necessary facts upon which the juvenile court should base its decision as to the propriety of transfer, and it does not preclude the defendant's right to a transfer hearing." [6] A recognized exception to this rule is contained in Syllabus | 2 | 4 |
State v. Ellsworthgreen2 sentences1999State v. Ellsworth J.R., 175 W.Va. 64, 70-71 , 331 S.E.2d 503, 509 (1985). 1999State v. Ellsworth J.R., 175 W.Va. 64, 70-71 , 331 S.E.2d 503, 509 (1985). | 2 | 2 |
Barrett Mobile Home Transport, Inc. v. Skjonsby Truck Line, Inc.green2 sentences1987The North Dakota Supreme Court, in Application of Skjonsby Truck Line, Inc., 357 N.W.2d 227, 232 (N.D.1984), interpreted a transfer statute that provided only for approval by the PSC, which language is similar to ours, and held that a showing of the public convenience and necessity was not required at a transfer hearing: “We conclude, as have courts in many other jurisdictions, that an independent determination of each of the factors of public convenience and necessity is not required in a transfer proceeding so long as the PSC prevents the expansion of old services, the revival of dormant rig 1987The North Dakota Supreme Court, in Application of Skjonsby Truck Line, Inc., 357 N.W.2d 227, 232 (N.D.1984), interpreted a transfer statute that provided only for approval by the PSC, which language is similar to ours, and held that a showing of the public convenience and necessity was not required at a transfer hearing: "We conclude, as have courts in many other jurisdictions, that an independent determination of each of the factors of public convenience and necessity is not required in a transfer proceeding so long as the PSC prevents the expansion of old services, the revival of dormant rig | 2 | 2 |
Bradley v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1987See Bradley v. United States, 322 F.Supp. 369 (D.Alaska 1971); Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 1342 (N.D.Ala.1970); Churchill Truck Lines v. Transportation Regulation Board, Etc., 274 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 1979); Spector Freight System, Inc. v. Herman Bros., 197 Neb. 835 , 251 N.W.2d 376 (1977); Application of Transit Homes, Inc., 173 Neb. 391 , 113 N.W.2d 638 (1962); Application of Transport, Inc. of South Dakota, 75 S.D. 340 , 64 N.W.2d 313 (1954); Tarry Moving & Storage Co. v. Railroad Comm’n, 367 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.1963).” See also, Vann Exp., Inc. v. Bee Line Exp., Inc., 1987See Bradley v. United States, 322 F.Supp. 369 (D.Alaska 1971); Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 1342 (N.D.Ala.1970); Churchill Truck Lines v. Transportation Regulation Board, Etc., 274 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 1979); Spector Freight System, Inc. v. Herman Bros., 197 Neb. 835 , 251 N.W. 2d 376 (1977); Application of Transit Homes, Inc., 173 Neb. 391 , 113 N.W.2d 638 (1962); Application of Transport, Inc. of South Dakota, 75 S.D. 340 , 64 N.W.2d 313 (1954); Tarry Moving & Storage Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 367 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.1963)." See also, Vann Exp., Inc. v. Bee Line Exp., Inc. | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Stricklandgreen | 2 | 2 |
In Re EHgreen2 sentences2004For instance, in In re E.H., 166 W.Va. 615 , 276 S.E.2d 557 (1981), a juvenile transfer hearing case, this Court explained that the strict requirements of the Rules of Evidence did not apply to a transfer hearing. 2003In In Re E.H., 166 W.Va. 615 , 276 S.E.2d 557 (1981), another juvenile transfer hearing case, we held that the strict requirements of the Rules of Evidence, that are applicable to juvenile adjudicatory hearings, did not apply to a transfer hearing. | 1 | 7 |
In re E. H.green2 sentences2004For instance, in In re E.H., 166 W.Va. 615 , 276 S.E.2d 557 (1981), a juvenile transfer hearing case, this Court explained that the strict requirements of the Rules of Evidence did not apply to a transfer hearing. 2003In In Re E.H., 166 W.Va. 615 , 276 S.E.2d 557 (1981), another juvenile transfer hearing case, we held that the strict requirements of the Rules of Evidence, that are applicable to juvenile adjudicatory hearings, did not apply to a transfer hearing. | 1 | 7 |
Matter of Mark EPgreen2 sentences2010This is because “[djouble jeopardy principles are not involved because a transfer hearing does not involve an adjudication of guilt.” Matter of Mark E.P., 175 W.Va. 83, 92 , 331 S.E.2d 813, 821 (1985) (citation omitted). 2010This is because “[djouble jeopardy principles are not involved because a transfer hearing does not involve an adjudication of guilt.” Matter of Mark E.P., 175 W.Va. 83, 92 , 331 S.E.2d 813, 821 (1985) (citation omitted). | 1 | 6 |
In the Interest of Mossgreen2 sentences2003In Syllabus Point 3 of In the Interest of Moss, 170 W.Va. 543 , 295 S.E.2d 33 (1982), a juvenile transfer-to-adult-criminal-jurisdiction ease, we held that the probable cause determination in a transfer hearing may not be established entirely by hearsay evidence. 8 *619 In the instant case, we have already ruled that — even accepting the minimal substantive evidence that was presented by means of the hearsay statements of the two witnesses who testified at the March 25, 2002 healing — sufficient proof under the circumstances to remove the juvenile from his parent’s custody and home was not add 2003In Syllabus Point 3 of In the Interest of Moss, 170 W.Va. 543 , 295 S.E.2d 33 (1982), a juvenile transfer-to-adult-criminal-jurisdiction ease, we held that the probable cause determination in a transfer hearing may not be established entirely by hearsay evidence. 8 *619 In the instant case, we have already ruled that — even accepting the minimal substantive evidence that was presented by means of the hearsay statements of the two witnesses who testified at the March 25, 2002 healing — sufficient proof under the circumstances to remove the juvenile from his parent’s custody and home was not add | 1 | 6 |
State v. GARY F.green2 sentences2021Va. 523 , 432 S.E.2d 793 (1993), this Court held that “[a] juvenile is denied his constitutional right to confront his accusers when a critical witness, who has not been demonstrated as unavailable pursuant to the rules of evidence, is permitted to testify by telephone during a transfer hearing.” Syl. 2003Additionally, Syllabus Point 3 of State v. Gary F., 189 W.Va. 523 , 432 S.E.2d 793 (1993) states: A juvenile is denied his constitutional right to confront his accusers when a critical wit-néss, who has not been demonstrated as unavailable pursuant to the rules of evidence, is permitted to testify by telephone during a transfer hearing. | 1 | 3 |
Kent v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1981Despite the statutory silence prior to 1977 on the right to a transfer hearing, this Court in Syllabus Point 1 of State v. McArdle, 156 W.Va. 409 , 194 S.E.2d 174 (1973), imposed a duty to hold a meaningful transfer hearing: "Since waiver of juvenile jurisdiction is a critical stage in criminal proceedings against a juvenile, constitutional due process demands that the child, his parents and his counsel be afforded reasonable notice of the waiver hearing, the charge to be considered, a reasonable opportunity to prepare a defense to such waiver and a meaningful hearing at which evidence on beha 1981Despite the statutory silence prior to 1977 on the right to a transfer hearing, this Court in Syllabus Point 1 of State v. McArdle, 156 W.Va. 409 , 194 S.E.2d 174 (1973), imposed a duty to hold a meaningful transfer hearing: "Since waiver of juvenile jurisdiction is a critical stage in criminal proceedings against a juvenile, constitutional due process demands that the child, his parents and his counsel be afforded reasonable notice of the waiver hearing, the charge to be considered, a reasonable opportunity to prepare a defense to such waiver and a meaningful hearing at which evidence on beha | 1 | 3 |
State v. RHgreen2 sentences1994To the extent this holding is inconsistent with State v. R.H., 166 W.Va. 280 , 273 S.E.2d 578 (1980) and State v. C.J.S., 164 W.Va. 473 , 263 S.E.2d 899 (1980), those cases are overruled." [7] There may be an occasion where a witness who testified at a preliminary hearing is unavailable at the transfer hearing. 1982In State v. R.H., 166 W.Va. 280 , 273 S.E.2d 578, 586 (1980), we reiterated the rule in this jurisdiction concerning the admissibility of sworn testimony from a former trial or proceeding: The well-settled rule in West Virginia is that sworn testimony taken from a former trial or proceeding is admissible if there is (1) an inability to obtain the testimony of the witness, (2) an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former proceeding, and (3) a substantial identity of parties and the issues. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Howertongreen2 sentences1991See State v. Howerton, 174 W.Va. 801 , 329 S.E.2d 874, n. 8 (1985); Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725 , 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2571 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979) (listing the following similar guidelines: “the juvenile’s age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and ... whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.”) In Syllabus Point 6 of In the Interest of Moss, 170 W.Va. 543 , 295 S.E.2d 33 (1982), we required that before considering a juvenile’s statement for the purpose of pro 1991See State v. Howerton, 174 W.Va. 801 , 329 S.E.2d 874, n. 8 (1985); Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725 , 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2571 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979) (listing the following similar guidelines: “the juvenile’s age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and ... whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.”) In Syllabus Point 6 of In the Interest of Moss, 170 W.Va. 543 , 295 S.E.2d 33 (1982), we required that before considering a juvenile’s statement for the purpose of pro | 1 | 2 |
Fare v. Michael C.green2 sentences1991See State v. Howerton, 174 W.Va. 801 , 329 S.E.2d 874, n. 8 (1985); Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725 , 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2571 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979) (listing the following similar guidelines: “the juvenile’s age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and ... whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.”) In Syllabus Point 6 of In the Interest of Moss, 170 W.Va. 543 , 295 S.E.2d 33 (1982), we required that before considering a juvenile’s statement for the purpose of pro 1991See State v. Howerton, 174 W.Va. 801 , 329 S.E.2d 874, n. 8 (1985); Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725 , 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2571 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979) (listing the following similar guidelines: “the juvenile’s age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and ... whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.”) In Syllabus Point 6 of In the Interest of Moss, 170 W.Va. 543 , 295 S.E.2d 33 (1982), we required that before considering a juvenile’s statement for the purpose of pro | 1 | 2 |
Arbogast v. R.B.C.green2 sentences1990Respondents argue that this Court has expressly determined in Arbogast v. R.B.C., 171 W.Va. 737 , 301 S.E.2d 827 (1983) that a juvenile can be tried under an indictment which was returned prior to holding a transfer hearing where the court *200 subsequently relinquished its juvenile jurisdiction. 1990Respondents argue that this Court has expressly determined in Arbogast v. R.B.C., 171 W.Va. 737 , 301 S.E.2d 827 (1983) that a juvenile can be tried under an indictment which was returned prior to holding a transfer hearing where the court *200 subsequently relinquished its juvenile jurisdiction. | 1 | 2 |
| Breed v. Jonesgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Markey v. Wachtelgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Parker v. Arizona Interscholastic Ass'ngreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Rushgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Randolphgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Daygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Goffgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Jscgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Miranda v. Arizonagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State in Interest of BTgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re RGSgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State in Interest of Dinogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. McLendon v. Mortongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Laundry Co. v. Dunn Hospitalgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chabut v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N OF W. VA.
green
2 sentences2021First, “[t]he chief inquiry at a transfer hearing is the ability of the proposed new certificate holder to carry on the business.” Syl. pt. 2, id. 1993In the first case, Chabut v. Public Service Commission, 179 W.Va. 111 , 365 S.E.2d 391 (1987), the Court indicated that the chief inquiry at a transfer hearing is the ability of the new certificate holder to carry on business. | 4 | 1992–2021 |
State Ex Rel. Cook v. Helms
green
2 sentences1993Cook v. Helms, 170 W.Va. 200 , 292 S.E.2d 610 (1981). “[Tjhough the word ‘continuance’ was not expressly used, the court’s subsequent docketing of the transfer hearing for 31 October demonstrates that the court in effect granted a continuance.” Id. at 201 , 292 S.E.2d at 611 n. 1. 1993Cook v. Helms, 170 W.Va. 200 , 292 S.E.2d 610 (1981). “[Tjhough the word ‘continuance’ was not expressly used, the court’s subsequent docketing of the transfer hearing for 31 October demonstrates that the court in effect granted a continuance.” Id. at 201 , 292 S.E.2d at 611 n. 1. | 4 | 1982–1994 |
State v. McArdle
green
2 sentences1994Smith v. Scott, 160 W.Va. 730 , 238 S.E.2d 223 (1977); State v. McArdle, 156 W.Va. 409 , 194 S.E.2d 174 (1973), modified on other grounds, State v. Hatfield, 169 W.Va. 191 , 286 S.E.2d 402 (1982). [5] The Syllabus of State v. Beaman, supra , is: "The return of an indictment against a juvenile defendant, while establishing probable cause, does not provide the necessary facts upon which the juvenile court should base its decision as to the propriety of transfer, and it does not preclude the defendant's right to a transfer hearing." [6] A recognized exception to this rule is contained in Syllabus 1994Smith v. Scott, 160 W.Va. 730 , 238 S.E.2d 223 (1977); State v. McArdle, 156 W.Va. 409 , 194 S.E.2d 174 (1973), modified on other grounds, State v. Hatfield, 169 W.Va. 191 , 286 S.E.2d 402 (1982). [5] The Syllabus of State v. Beaman, supra , is: "The return of an indictment against a juvenile defendant, while establishing probable cause, does not provide the necessary facts upon which the juvenile court should base its decision as to the propriety of transfer, and it does not preclude the defendant's right to a transfer hearing." [6] A recognized exception to this rule is contained in Syllabus | 4 | 1981–1994 |
Chabut v. Public Service Commission
green
2 sentences1997Pt. 2, Chabut v. Public Service Comm’n, 179 W.Va. 111 , 365 S.E.2d 391 (1987). 1993In the first case, Chabut v. Public Service Commission, 179 W.Va. 111 , 365 S.E.2d 391 (1987), the Court indicated that the chief inquiry at a transfer hearing is the ability of the new certificate holder to carry on business. | 3 | 1992–1997 |
State v. Bannister
green
2 sentences1980We note first that our disposition of this issue with respect to the transfer hearing is controlled by our holding in State v. Bannister, W.Va., 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978). 1980We note first that our disposition of this issue with respect to the transfer hearing is controlled by our holding is State v. Bannister, 162 W. | 3 | 1980–1996 |
State v. Bush
green
2 sentences2021After taking the facts and circumstances into consideration, the circuit court granted the State’s motion to continue the transfer hearing 13 Although we find that any error that may have occurred was harmless given Petitioner’s admissions, we caution the State to be mindful of the right to confrontation at transfer hearings. 14 Pursuant to West Virginia Code § 49-4-710(a) the State must file a motion to transfer jurisdiction “at least eight days prior to the adjudicatory hearing[.]” The State filed its motion on November 7, 2019. 15 Pursuant to Rule 20(e)(5) of the West Virginia Rules of Juve 2013The petitioner’s third argument is that the continuances granted on February 28, 2011, and March 16, 2011, were unjustified, and that the juvenile court’s delay in holding the transfer hearing prejudiced the petitioner. “‘A motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a showing that there has been an abuse of discretion.’ Syl. pt. 2, State v. Bush, 163 W.Va. 168 , 255 S.E.2d 539 (1979).” Syl. pt. 2, State v. Jason H., 215 W. | 2 | 2013–2021 |
State v. Giles
green
2 sentences1999Crediting the version of facts that was testified to by the police, the circuit court could permissibly conclude from those facts, as a matter of law, for purposes of the transfer hearing, that the appellant was not, prior to confessing to shooting Ronnie New, detained by actions or speech of the police indicating an intention to take the appellant into custody and subjecting the appellant to the actual control and will of the police ( cf. Syllabus Point 3, State v. Giles, 183 W.Va. 237 , 395 S.E.2d 481 (1990)). 1999Crediting the version of facts that was testified to by the police, the circuit court could permissibly conclude from those facts, as a matter of law, for purposes of the transfer hearing, that the appellant was not, prior to confessing to shooting Ronnie New, detained by actions or speech of the police indicating an intention to take the appellant into custody and subjecting the appellant to the actual control and will of the police ( cf. Syllabus Point 3, State v. Giles, 183 W.Va. 237 , 395 S.E.2d 481 (1990)). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Solid Waste Services of West Virginia v. Public Service Commission
green
2 sentences1997In Solid Waste Services of West Virginia v. Public Service Commission, 188 W.Va. 117 , 422 S.E.2d 839 (1992), we reiterated that “ ‘[t]he chief inquiry at a transfer hearing is the ability of the proposed new certificate holder to carry on the business.’ ” Id. at 119 , 422 S.E.2d at 841 , quoting Syl. 1997In Solid Waste Services of West Virginia v. Public Service Commission, 188 W.Va. 117 , 422 S.E.2d 839 (1992), we reiterated that “ ‘[t]he chief inquiry at a transfer hearing is the ability of the proposed new certificate holder to carry on the business.’ ” Id. at 119 , 422 S.E.2d at 841 , quoting Syl. | 2 | 1993–1997 |
State v. R. H.
green
2 sentences1994To the extent this holding is inconsistent with State v. R.H., 166 W.Va. 280 , 273 S.E.2d 578 (1980) and State v. C.J.S., 164 W.Va. 473 , 263 S.E.2d 899 (1980), those cases are overruled." [7] There may be an occasion where a witness who testified at a preliminary hearing is unavailable at the transfer hearing. 1982In State v. R.H., 166 W.Va. 280 , 273 S.E.2d 578, 586 (1980), we reiterated the rule in this jurisdiction concerning the admissibility of sworn testimony from a former trial or proceeding: The well-settled rule in West Virginia is that sworn testimony taken from a former trial or proceeding is admissible if there is (1) an inability to obtain the testimony of the witness, (2) an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former proceeding, and (3) a substantial identity of parties and the issues. | 2 | 1982–1994 |
State v. Vance
green
2 sentences1985See also, State in Interest of Dino, — La. —, at —, 359 So.2d 586 at 591 (1978).” The United States Supreme Court’s guidelines in Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. at 725 , 99 S.Ct. at 2572 , 61 L.Ed.2d at 212 , are similar: “the juvenile’s age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and ... whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.” We held in Syllabus Point 6 of In the Interest of Moss, 170 W.Va. 543 , 295 S.E.2d 33 (1982), that a court in a transfer hearing is obliged to 1985See also, State in Interest of Dino, — La. —, at —, 359 So.2d 586 at 591 (1978).” The United States Supreme Court’s guidelines in Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. at 725 , 99 S.Ct. at 2572 , 61 L.Ed.2d at 212 , are similar: “the juvenile’s age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and ... whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.” We held in Syllabus Point 6 of In the Interest of Moss, 170 W.Va. 543 , 295 S.E.2d 33 (1982), that a court in a transfer hearing is obliged to | 2 | 1985–1991 |
Spector Freight System, Inc. v. Herman Bros.
neutral
2 sentences1987See Bradley v. United States, 322 F.Supp. 369 (D.Alaska 1971); Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 1342 (N.D.Ala.1970); Churchill Truck Lines v. Transportation Regulation Board, Etc., 274 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 1979); Spector Freight System, Inc. v. Herman Bros., 197 Neb. 835 , 251 N.W. 2d 376 (1977); Application of Transit Homes, Inc., 173 Neb. 391 , 113 N.W.2d 638 (1962); Application of Transport, Inc. of South Dakota, 75 S.D. 340 , 64 N.W.2d 313 (1954); Tarry Moving & Storage Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 367 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.1963)." See also, Vann Exp., Inc. v. Bee Line Exp., Inc. 1987See Bradley v. United States, 322 F.Supp. 369 (D.Alaska 1971); Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 1342 (N.D.Ala.1970); Churchill Truck Lines v. Transportation Regulation Board, Etc., 274 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 1979); Spector Freight System, Inc. v. Herman Bros., 197 Neb. 835 , 251 N.W. 2d 376 (1977); Application of Transit Homes, Inc., 173 Neb. 391 , 113 N.W.2d 638 (1962); Application of Transport, Inc. of South Dakota, 75 S.D. 340 , 64 N.W.2d 313 (1954); Tarry Moving & Storage Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 367 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.1963)." See also, Vann Exp., Inc. v. Bee Line Exp., Inc. | 2 | 1987–1987 |
Transit Homes, Inc. v. National Trailer Convoy, Inc.
green
2 sentences1987See Bradley v. United States, 322 F.Supp. 369 (D.Alaska 1971); Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 1342 (N.D.Ala.1970); Churchill Truck Lines v. Transportation Regulation Board, Etc., 274 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 1979); Spector Freight System, Inc. v. Herman Bros., 197 Neb. 835 , 251 N.W. 2d 376 (1977); Application of Transit Homes, Inc., 173 Neb. 391 , 113 N.W.2d 638 (1962); Application of Transport, Inc. of South Dakota, 75 S.D. 340 , 64 N.W.2d 313 (1954); Tarry Moving & Storage Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 367 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.1963)." See also, Vann Exp., Inc. v. Bee Line Exp., Inc. 1987See Bradley v. United States, 322 F.Supp. 369 (D.Alaska 1971); Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 1342 (N.D.Ala.1970); Churchill Truck Lines v. Transportation Regulation Board, Etc., 274 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 1979); Spector Freight System, Inc. v. Herman Bros., 197 Neb. 835 , 251 N.W. 2d 376 (1977); Application of Transit Homes, Inc., 173 Neb. 391 , 113 N.W.2d 638 (1962); Application of Transport, Inc. of South Dakota, 75 S.D. 340 , 64 N.W.2d 313 (1954); Tarry Moving & Storage Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 367 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.1963)." See also, Vann Exp., Inc. v. Bee Line Exp., Inc. | 2 | 1987–1987 |
Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. United States
green
2 sentences1987See Bradley v. United States, 322 F.Supp. 369 (D.Alaska 1971); Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 1342 (N.D.Ala.1970); Churchill Truck Lines v. Transportation Regulation Board, Etc., 274 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 1979); Spector Freight System, Inc. v. Herman Bros., 197 Neb. 835 , 251 N.W.2d 376 (1977); Application of Transit Homes, Inc., 173 Neb. 391 , 113 N.W.2d 638 (1962); Application of Transport, Inc. of South Dakota, 75 S.D. 340 , 64 N.W.2d 313 (1954); Tarry Moving & Storage Co. v. Railroad Comm’n, 367 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.1963).” See also, Vann Exp., Inc. v. Bee Line Exp., Inc., 1987See Bradley v. United States, 322 F.Supp. 369 (D.Alaska 1971); Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 1342 (N.D.Ala.1970); Churchill Truck Lines v. Transportation Regulation Board, Etc., 274 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 1979); Spector Freight System, Inc. v. Herman Bros., 197 Neb. 835 , 251 N.W. 2d 376 (1977); Application of Transit Homes, Inc., 173 Neb. 391 , 113 N.W.2d 638 (1962); Application of Transport, Inc. of South Dakota, 75 S.D. 340 , 64 N.W.2d 313 (1954); Tarry Moving & Storage Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 367 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.1963)." See also, Vann Exp., Inc. v. Bee Line Exp., Inc. | 2 | 1987–1987 |
Application of Transport, Inc. of South Dakota
green
2 sentences1987See Bradley v. United States, 322 F.Supp. 369 (D.Alaska 1971); Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 1342 (N.D.Ala.1970); Churchill Truck Lines v. Transportation Regulation Board, Etc., 274 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 1979); Spector Freight System, Inc. v. Herman Bros., 197 Neb. 835 , 251 N.W. 2d 376 (1977); Application of Transit Homes, Inc., 173 Neb. 391 , 113 N.W.2d 638 (1962); Application of Transport, Inc. of South Dakota, 75 S.D. 340 , 64 N.W.2d 313 (1954); Tarry Moving & Storage Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 367 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.1963)." See also, Vann Exp., Inc. v. Bee Line Exp., Inc. 1987See Bradley v. United States, 322 F.Supp. 369 (D.Alaska 1971); Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 1342 (N.D.Ala.1970); Churchill Truck Lines v. Transportation Regulation Board, Etc., 274 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 1979); Spector Freight System, Inc. v. Herman Bros., 197 Neb. 835 , 251 N.W. 2d 376 (1977); Application of Transit Homes, Inc., 173 Neb. 391 , 113 N.W.2d 638 (1962); Application of Transport, Inc. of South Dakota, 75 S.D. 340 , 64 N.W.2d 313 (1954); Tarry Moving & Storage Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 367 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.1963)." See also, Vann Exp., Inc. v. Bee Line Exp., Inc. | 2 | 1987–1987 |
| Churchill Truck Lines, Inc. v. Transportation Regulation Board of the Iowa Department of Transportation green | 2 | 1987–1987 |
Tarry Moving & Storage Co. v. Railroad Commission
green
2 sentences1987See Bradley v. United States, 322 F.Supp. 369 (D.Alaska 1971); Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 1342 (N.D.Ala.1970); Churchill Truck Lines v. Transportation Regulation Board, Etc., 274 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 1979); Spector Freight System, Inc. v. Herman Bros., 197 Neb. 835 , 251 N.W.2d 376 (1977); Application of Transit Homes, Inc., 173 Neb. 391 , 113 N.W.2d 638 (1962); Application of Transport, Inc. of South Dakota, 75 S.D. 340 , 64 N.W.2d 313 (1954); Tarry Moving & Storage Co. v. Railroad Comm’n, 367 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.1963).” See also, Vann Exp., Inc. v. Bee Line Exp., Inc., 1987See Bradley v. United States, 322 F.Supp. 369 (D.Alaska 1971); Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 1342 (N.D.Ala.1970); Churchill Truck Lines v. Transportation Regulation Board, Etc., 274 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 1979); Spector Freight System, Inc. v. Herman Bros., 197 Neb. 835 , 251 N.W. 2d 376 (1977); Application of Transit Homes, Inc., 173 Neb. 391 , 113 N.W.2d 638 (1962); Application of Transport, Inc. of South Dakota, 75 S.D. 340 , 64 N.W.2d 313 (1954); Tarry Moving & Storage Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 367 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.1963)." See also, Vann Exp., Inc. v. Bee Line Exp., Inc. | 2 | 1987–1987 |
Vann Exp., Inc. v. Bee Line Exp., Inc.
green
2 sentences1987See Bradley v. United States, 322 F.Supp. 369 (D.Alaska 1971); Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 1342 (N.D.Ala.1970); Churchill Truck Lines v. Transportation Regulation Board, Etc., 274 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 1979); Spector Freight System, Inc. v. Herman Bros., 197 Neb. 835 , 251 N.W.2d 376 (1977); Application of Transit Homes, Inc., 173 Neb. 391 , 113 N.W.2d 638 (1962); Application of Transport, Inc. of South Dakota, 75 S.D. 340 , 64 N.W.2d 313 (1954); Tarry Moving & Storage Co. v. Railroad Comm’n, 367 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.1963).” See also, Vann Exp., Inc. v. Bee Line Exp., Inc., 1987See Bradley v. United States, 322 F.Supp. 369 (D.Alaska 1971); Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 1342 (N.D.Ala.1970); Churchill Truck Lines v. Transportation Regulation Board, Etc., 274 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 1979); Spector Freight System, Inc. v. Herman Bros., 197 Neb. 835 , 251 N.W. 2d 376 (1977); Application of Transit Homes, Inc., 173 Neb. 391 , 113 N.W.2d 638 (1962); Application of Transport, Inc. of South Dakota, 75 S.D. 340 , 64 N.W.2d 313 (1954); Tarry Moving & Storage Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 367 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.1963)." See also, Vann Exp., Inc. v. Bee Line Exp., Inc. | 2 | 1987–1987 |
| State v. McAboy green | 2 | 1981–1981 |
| Clemons v. State green | 2 | 1981–1981 |
| Birch v. Henderson neutral | 2 | 1981–1981 |
| Kaye v. United States green | 2 | 1981–1981 |
| State v. Miller green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Jason H. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Stuckey green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Anderson green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Mason green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Matter of Stephfon W. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| In re D.J. green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| State v. Beaman green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| In Re GAULT green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| EB JR. v. Canterbury green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| State v. SONJA B. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| State v. Hatfield green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| State v. C. J. S. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| State v. CJS green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| In the Interest of Clark green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| United States v. Humphries green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Wayland v. Tiffany green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Savarin v. National Bank of Commerce-Master Charge green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Weirton Ice & Coal Supply Co. v. Public Service Commission green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.