Opinion

State Ex Rel. Prosecuting Attorney v. Bayer Corp.

  • 223 W. Va. 146
  • 672 S.E.2d 282
Court
West Virginia Supreme Court
Filed
Jan 9, 2009
Status
Published
Author
Benjamin
On the bench
Davis, Albright, Status, McHugh, Beane, Benjamin
Cited by
13 cases

holding that “[ujnless otherwise provided by law, the standard of review by a circuit court in a writ of certiorari proceeding under W.Va.Code § 53-3-3 (1923) (Repl.Vol.2000) is de novo”

How later courts described this case

  • holding that “[ujnless otherwise provided by law, the standard of review by a circuit court in a writ of certiorari proceeding under W.Va.Code § 53-3-3 (1923) (Repl.Vol.2000) is de novo”
  • holding that “Unless otherwise provided by law, the standard of review by a circuit court in a writ of certiorari proceeding under W. Va.Code § 53-3-3 (1923) (Repl.Vol.2000) is de novo”
  • establishing procedure for issuance of writ of certiorari (citation omitted)
  • establishing procedure for issuance of writ of certiorari

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

BENJAMIN, J.,

concurring and dissenting:

For the reasons set forth in my dissenting-opinion in In re: Tax Assessment of Foster Foundation’s Woodlands Retirement, No. 33891, I respectfully concur and dissent in this case. I believe that the proper burden of proof for a taxpayer in a ease such as this is that the taxpayer meet a “preponderancy of the evidence” burden. I therefore dissent to the majority opinion. However, since the use of a preponderancy standard would not have changed the result on appeal, I concur with the majority in the ultimate outcome of this appeal.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.