affirming dismissal on ' statute of limitations grounds where cost bond not obtained until after period of repose had run
How later courts described this case
- affirming dismissal on ' statute of limitations grounds where cost bond not obtained until after period of repose had run
- “[Statutes which require the giving of bond as a prerequisite to the prosecution of an appeal are strictly construed and their requirements are mandatory and jurisdictional. An untimely filing of such a bond dictates the dismissal of a case.”
- “Statutes of limitation are statutes of repose and the legislative purpose is to compel the exercise of a right of action within a reasonable time[.]”
- “Law should not be a game of ‘Mother may I!’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in Frantz v. Palmer
See, e.g., Syl. pt. 2, Perdue v. Hess, 199 W.Va. 299, 484 S.E.2d 182 (1997) (“The ultimate purpose of statutes of limitations is to require the institution of a cause of action within a reasonable time.”); Syl. pt. 1, in part, Stevens v. Saunders, 159 W.Va. 179, 220 S.E.2d 887 (1975) (“Statutes of limitation are statutes of repose and the legislative purpose is to compel the exercise of a right of action within a rea…
The opinion
Neely, Justice,
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent from the majority holding in this case based upon my view regarding frivolous procedural technicalities, particularly when a litigant is penalized because of an error of a lawyer which in no way goes to the merits of the case or causes prejudice to the other side, as expressed in my opinions in Rosier v. Garron, Inc., W. Va., 199 S.E.2d 50 (1973); Roe v. M & R Pipeliners, Inc., W. Va., 202 S.E.2d 816 (1973); and Dawson v. Canteen Corp., _W. Va. _, 212 S.E.2d 82 (1975). Law should not be a game of “Mother may I!”