Case law

Crain v. Bordenkircher

180 W. Va. 246 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1988

Our action, however, is clearly a lesser evil than the relief prayed for by the petitioners — their release from the penitentiary because of the unconstitutional conditions of confinement. … The Supreme Court remanded the case with directions to dismiss the State of Alabama and the Alabama Department of Corrections as the district court’s injunction violated the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Pauley v. Decker

89 W. Va. 485 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1921

There had been no evidence to show that Kittinger knew anything about the ejectment suit and he was therefore not qualified to speak on “what it involved.” … Parol testimony, properly introduced, to locate and establish the portion of land lost in the ejectment suit, would have been admissible.

Doering v. CITY OF RONCEVERTE

228 W. Va. 147 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 20, 2011

Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995): “Where the issue on appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.” … State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 213 W.Va. 80 , 576 S.E.2d 807 (2002), holds: Standing is comprised of three elements: First, the party attempting to establish standing must have suffered an “injury-in-invasion

State of West Virginia v. Steven Wayne Funt

West Virginia Supreme Court · Aug 30, 2022

It went on to find that it was a fair inference that “the omission of breaking and entering from the list of qualifying offenses indicates that breaking and entering is not a qualifying offense.[] But merely establishing … We review the decision on the Rule 35 motion under an abuse of discretion standard; the underlying facts are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of law and interpretations of statutes

State ex rel. Lincoln Journal, Inc. v. Hustead

228 W. Va. 17 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 2, 2011

Petitioners asserted a qualified reporter’s privilege under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and under West Virginia state law. … no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the lower tribunal’s order is clearly

Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Karl

192 W. Va. 23 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1994

Our research reveals that very few courts in the country have clearly addressed this issue, and none in any depth. … It stands to reason that quite clearly a lawyer cannot be a judge if he or she is unable to attain inactive status.

Lilly v. Stump

217 W. Va. 313 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 31, 2005

In other words, the findings must be clearly wrong to warrant judicial interference.... … He then states that based upon the evidence of record it cannot be established whether the officer in this case complied with the requirements of W.Va.Code § 17C-5-4 and § 17C-5-7.

State Ex Rel. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Canady

194 W. Va. 431 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1995

sacred privilege and/or immunity is no privilege and/or immunity at all but a cruel illusion. 8 In short, the attorney-client privilege and the work product exception would be lost forever if the offended party is forced … To add to the confusion, the circuit court’s decision as to the attorney work product immunity is non-existent.

State v. Loveless

142 W. Va. 809 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1957

A very large proportion of that number were found not qualified for the reason that they had formed opinions as to the guilt or innocence of defendant. … The authorities quoted clearly justify the conclusion that two grand juries often functioned at the same time, in the same county, at common law. For additional authorities supporting that conclusion see People v.

STATE EX REL. ALLSTATE v. Madden

215 W. Va. 705 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 18, 2004

work product exception have been established.” … “While the work product doctrine creates a form of qualified immunity from discovery, it does not label protected material as ‘privileged’ and thus outside the scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1), W.V.R.C.P.”

State of West Virginia v. James Scott Yocum

233 W. Va. 439 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 12, 2014

Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 , 69 S.Ct. 684 , 93 L.Ed. 834 (1949), the United States Supreme Court held that the constitutional freedom of speech and press does not immunize speech or writing used as an integral … In this case, the threat that was prosecuted by the State was clearly not aimed at a branch or level of government but solely at an individual police officer.

State of West Virginia ex rel. Maynard v. Justice, Governor

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 2, 2021

to fill the vacancy from the list of legally qualified persons within five days after the list is received. … In this regard, the statute governing the filling of legislative vacancies clearly states: “If the list is not submitted to the Governor within the 15-day period, the Governor shall appoint within five days thereafter a

Powell v. Sims

5 W. Va. 1 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1871

In the deeds to the parties, the boundaries of their respective premises are accurately described by metes and bounds, and the partition line ‘or boundary between them is called for and clearly defined in each of the deeds … Fletcher, and that class of cases, been acquiesced in and followed, while it has been greatly qualified in most of the cases where the question arose, and limited to cases of strong necessity.

Jefferson County Board of Education v. Jefferson County Education Ass'n

183 W. Va. 15 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1990

Co., supra (establishing strict liability in tort for manufactured products); Harless v. … Francis Hosp., 149 W.Va. 705 , 143 S.E.2d 154 (1965) (abolishing doctrine of charitable immunity in tort cases against hospitals). 14 .

McKenzie v. Carroll International Corp.

216 W. Va. 686 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 12, 2004

McKenzie established a proper foundation for introducing the statements. 12 D. Admission of Hearsay Statements by Byron Read Mr. … The facts developed at trial in this case clearly establish that the handwritten notes of Mr. Read fall squarely under Rule 803(6) as a record of a regularly conducted business activity.

Locke v. Russell

75 W. Va. 602 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1915

By way of qualifying himself to speak as an expert in the making of gasoline, he said: “I was one of the first in the business, in producing gasoline, and have had practical experience”; and that the method described had … Clearly, therefore, plaintiffs were in no sense entitled to the compensation fixed by the contract for paying gas wells. No such wells were drilled or operated on their lands.

Waldron v. Waldron

73 W. Va. 311 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1913

Waldron was established, still it could not affect the right of Belle Waldron, the wife, who claimed that she had no knowledge of the contract of tenancy, but that she had all along through the period of the occupancy of … The evidence does not clearly disclose. Nor does it matter.

Cobb v. Dunlevie

63 W. Va. 398 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1908

This fact was established, not only by the oral testimony but by correspondence adduced between plaintiff and defendant, substantially as alleged. … Clearly as to Dunlevie, the clerk was not authorized by sections 2 and 3, chapter 73, Code, to admit the contract to record,s the same not being acknowledged by him or proven by witnesses; and, not having been properly admitted

STATE EX REL. ERIE INS. CO. v. Mazzone

625 S.E.2d 355 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 6, 2005

("[I]t would certainly seem that reserve calculations by claims adjusters qualify as work product under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3). … Absent such a compelling showing, the attorney's opinion work product should remain immune from discovery."

Culurides v. Ott

78 W. Va. 696 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1916

The coal company had qualified pursuant to the requirements of the act, and thereby secured itself against actions for injuries inflicted upon its employees in the course of their employment. … Besides, in every- important particular except as to signatures, the application on its face clearly furnished all the data necessary to pass upon the justness of the claim and the persons entitled thereto.