challenged justice declined to recuse himself; court concluded that "where *459 a motion is made to disqualify or recuse an individual justice of this Court, that question is to be decided by the challenged justice and not by the other members of this Court."
How later courts described this case
- challenged justice declined to recuse himself; court concluded that "where *459 a motion is made to disqualify or recuse an individual justice of this Court, that question is to be decided by the challenged justice and not by the other members of this Court."
- challenged justice declined to recuse himself; court concluded that "where a motion is made to disqualify or recuse an individual justice of this Court, that question is to be decided by the challenged justice and not by the other members of this Court."
- “Effect should be given to the spirit, purpose and intent of the lawmakers without limiting the interpretation in such a manner as to defeat 12 the underlying purpose of the statute. Each word of a statute should be given some effect and a statute must be construed in accordance with the import of its language. Undefined words and terms used in a legislative enactment will be given their common, ordinary and accepted meaning.”
- “Each word of a statute should be given some effect and a statute must be construed in accordance with the import of its language. Undefined words and terms used in a legislative enactment will be given their common, ordinary and accepted meaning.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McHUGH, Chief Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
The proceeding before this Court, as with many original proceedings, is replete with factual disputes regarding the financial reporting provisions of article 8, chapter 3 of the West Virginia Code. Although the records in original proceedings before this Court have traditionally been limited, it is my opinion that this case should have been referred to a special master or commissioner for findings of fact as provided by Rule 14(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.
Of particular concern to me is the lack of a development of facts supporting the conclusions reached by the majority in sections III and IV. After adequate fact finding, the result may be the same, and if the facts support that result, I would concur. I do, however, caution the reader to beware of the precedential value of this case.
ORDER
Justice McGraw withdraws his dissenting opinion, previously filed herein, from publication by the West Publishing Company for the reason that the West Publishing Company has edited the same by refusing to publish said dissent in its entirety.*