holding that “motions to amend should always be granted under Rule 15 when: (1) the amendment permits the presentation of the merits of the action; (2) the adverse party is not prejudiced by the sudden assertion of the subject of the amendment; and (3) the adverse party can be given ample opportunity to meet the issue”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “motions to amend should always be granted under Rule 15 when: (1) the amendment permits the presentation of the merits of the action; (2) the adverse party is not prejudiced by the sudden assertion of the subject of the amendment; and (3) the adverse party can be given ample opportunity to meet the issue”
- finding that a foreign administratrix lacked the capacity to sue under W. Va.Code 55-7-6 (1967)
- "the two-year limitation upon the bringing of an action for wrongful death is an integral part of the statute itself and creates a condition precedent to the bringing of an action which bears no relationship to statutes of limitation”
- Justices Berry, Caplan, Haden and Sprouse concurring
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Bradshaw v. Soulsby, 210 W. Va. 682 (2001)
156 W.Va. 861 , 199 S.E.2d 50 (1973), overruled on other grounds by Bradshaw v. Soulsby , 210 W.Va. 682 , 558 S.E.2d 681
The opinion
Berry, Chief Justice,
concurring:
I concur with the decision in this case as indicated in the first part of the opinion of the Court, but disagree with the propriety of some of the dissertation in the latter part of the opinion regarding procedural formalism, stability of the rule of law and the obligations of counsel to his clients. In the main, such discourse was not necessary for the decision of this certified case and in some instances was not applicable to the questions involved.
I am authorized to state that Justices Caplan, Haden and Sprouse join in this concurrence.