Case law

David Ballard v. Robert Junior Thomas

233 W. Va. 488 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 5, 2014

“In the West Virginia courts, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be governed by the two-pronged test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 104 S. … Clearly, however, both the absence of this phrase from the statutory instruction and commensurate absence of definition actually inured to respondent’s benefit.

City of Benwood v. Board of Education

212 W. Va. 436 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 1, 2002

Of course, a clearly erroneous standard applies to the circuit court’s underlying factual findings. Id. … Those notices clearly outlined the Board’s proposal for closing and consolidating the schools.

Thompson v. Curry

79 W. Va. 771 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1917

That relation, its burdens and immunities are the same in all jurisdictions wherein the uniform negotiable instruments act has been enacted and now is in force. … plaintiff, that, although Granville Curry and Johnson were indorsers entitled to notice of dishonor, they were nevertheless bound because before and after the maturity of the note they waived these requirements; and to establish

Glascock v. City Nat. Bank of West Virginia

213 W. Va. 61 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 9, 2002

Akens, but established in its opinion the possibility of recovery in other cases where a plaintiff and defendant have a closer nexus. … We hasten to point out that a lender can always (as the bank in this case could have done) immunize itself from a suit such as this by simply making a copy of the information it has and mailing it to the borrower.

Edward Reed v. Exel Logistics, Inc.

815 S.E.2d 511 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2018

The claimant asserts that the claims examiner's declaration of an overpayment clearly violated West Virginia's workers' compensation laws. … Code, 23-5-1, proceeding, that the claimant was not lawfully entitled to the temporary total disability benefits originally by virtue of the fact that the claim did not jurisdictionally qualify. 163 W.Va. at 108 , 256 S.E

State v. Ladd

210 W. Va. 413 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 11, 2001

The burden is squarely upon the prosecution to establish the challenged evidence is so trustworthy that adversarial testing would add little to its reliability. … The introduction of Mitchell’s out-of-court statement clearly violated the defendant’s right to confront witnesses against her.

Chapman Corporation v. Teddy Kemp

West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 5, 2023

First, the Office of Judges found that the weight of the medical record clearly establishes that Mr. Kemp has a diagnosis of CLL. Second, the Office of Judges concluded that Mr. … Infante and Mehta were more qualified in the area of benzene exposure and CLL causality than Dr. Martin. Further, the Office of Judges found that the opinions of Drs.

Parks v. BD. OF REVIEW OF W. VA. DES

188 W. Va. 447 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1992

Despite its authority to establish procedural regulations, 7 the Board has not seen fit to promulgate such regulations with regard to telephonic appeal hearings. … Any individual party to an appeal, or the duly qualified attorney-at-law representing any party, individual or corporate, may cross-examine adverse parties and witnesses for adverse parties.

State of West Virginia v. J.C.

241 W. Va. 712 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 17, 2019

We have found only one mental health statute that clearly addresses juveniles: West Virginia Code § 27-6A-9 (2007) (Section 9). … Moreover, neither Section 2, Section 4, nor Section 9 establish what a court is to do when an evaluation reveals a juvenile is incompetent.

Horton v. Tyree

104 W. Va. 238 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1927

This instruction very clearly states the law as we have already shown. Osborne v. Holt, supra. … However, instruction No. 9, offered by defendant, states the same proposition of law, using the qualifying word “wilfully”. So, a proper instruction was refused.

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

180 W. Va. 533 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1988

category for claims *539 filed between 1 July 1973 and 31 December 1973, and required coal companies to carry insurance or to qualify for self-insurance. … Congress has conferred upon qualified claimants the right to receive black lung benefits.

State of West Virginia v. Benjamin R. Taylor

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 18, 2023

two-thousand pages of the appendix record on appeal is, of course, an egregious affront to Rule 10(c)(7) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure, which requires that [t]he brief must contain an argument clearly … It denied the State’s motion to suppress the evidence but qualified that “in the event such evidence is introduced, the State may motion the [c]ourt to be permitted to introduce evidence of the previously agreed-to suppressed

State ex rel. Hawkins v. Tyler County Board of Education

166 W. Va. 363 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1980

Such duties commonly are within the expertise of the teacher and are such that the teacher is qualified to direct them. … The contract should, however, contain a provision establishing any specific conditions upon which the teacher’s employment is premised.

In Re an Investigation of the West Virginia State Police Crime Laboratory

190 W. Va. 321 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1993

In Giglio , a Government witness was promised immunity if he would testify against the defendant. This promise was made by an assistant district attorney who was not involved in the Giglio trial. … On cross-examination, the witness denied that he received any promise of immunity.

Keatley v. Mercer County Board of Education

200 W. Va. 487 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1997

Code § 18A-4-7a does not establish the deadline by which an applicant must possess the appropriate certification. 6 The absence of such a reference clearly indicates, legislative intent for county boards of education to exercise … It is the final point tabulation which dictates the most qualified candidate for the position. 13 . Our decision in Pockl v.

Adkins v. Capehart

202 W. Va. 460 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1998

Appellants take the position that the March 7, 1997, order leaves nothing to be resolved and therefore qualifies as a final order. … As such, we determine that this Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter under well-established principles that require the issuance of a final order as a prerequisite to appellate review. 17 *464 See James M.B.,

In Re: P.K.-1 and P.K.-2

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 22, 2017

These findings shall not be set aside by a reviewing court unless clearly erroneous. … Petitioner admits that the therapist was properly qualified as an expert, but he claims that the circuit court credited her testimony “as if she conducted forensic therapy.”

In re J.C.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 1, 2021

These findings shall not be set aside by a reviewing court unless clearly erroneous. … It is well established that 3 The mother’s parental rights were also terminated below.

White v. Williams, Superintendent

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 20, 2021

attacked as ineffective, arises from occurrences involving strategy, tactics and arguable courses of action, his conduct will be deemed effectively assistive of his client’s interests, unless no reasonably qualified … Because the statement was a correct statement of the law and did not clearly prejudice petitioner or result in manifest injustice pursuant to Sugg, petitioner cannot establish that the circuit court erred in denying his petition

William H. Cecil, III v. Jonathan Frame, Superintendent, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 26, 2024

The court further concluded that even if the petitioner had demonstrated that trial counsel was involved in the waiver of his PSR, this was a strategic decision, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate that no reasonably qualified … West Virginia Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(c)(7) requires a petitioner to “clearly exhibit[] the points of fact and law presented” and to “cit[e] the authorities relied on[.]”