Case law

State v. Pratt

161 W. Va. 530 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 2, 1978

Code, 56-6-12 “... clearly requires the court to provide for an adequate voir dire to the end that a juror be fully qualified, not related to either party, with no interest in the cause or sensible of any bias or prejudice … The Court, through Justice Caplan, wrote: “Furthermore, it is now well established that, in the event a defendant in a criminal case objects *540 to the admissibility of evidence on the ground of unlawful search, the question

State Ex Rel. Dunlap v. McBride

225 W. Va. 192 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 4, 2010

Dunlap sought to establish ineffective assistance of counsel on various grounds. Mr. … The first matter that must be clearly understood is that the issue raised by Mr.

State Ex Rel. Booth v. BOARD OF BALLOT COM'RS

196 S.E.2d 299 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 1, 1973

As to whether mandamus is the proper remedy to try title to a public office, the scope of the writ has not been clearly defined in this jurisdiction. State ex rel. Porter v. … While the Constitution, Article VIII, § 24, clearly declares that the election contest for county and district offices shall be tried by the county court, it also qualifies that power by subjecting it "to such regulations

Verizon Services Corp. v. Board of Review of Workforce West Virginia

811 S.E.2d 885 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 13, 2018

“The findings of fact of the Board of Review of [WorkForce West Virginia] are entitled to substantial deference unless a reviewing court believes the findings are clearly wrong. … Additionally, we believe that the Act was clearly designed to serve not only the interest of qualifying unemployed persons, but also the general public. Childress v.

Self v. Queen

199 W. Va. 637 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1997

The appellant also urges this Court to change the established law in this state relating to liability involving invitees and licensees. … The purpose of this visit was clearly social.

State v. Wilson

190 W. Va. 583 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1993

However, we also explained at syllabus point 2 of Vance that “[i]t is a well-established rule of appellate review in this state that a trial court has wide discretion in regard to the admissibility of confessions and ordinarily … Counsel for the Appellant made no objection to such questioning or the answer given by Sergeant Estep which clearly informed the jury that the results indicated that the Appellant had been lying.

Foster v. Orchard Development Co., LLC

227 W. Va. 119 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 23, 2010

as established by the Executive Board. … Clearly, the amendment process is easier for the Design Guidelines than for the Covenants.

Haddad v. Caryl

182 W. Va. 563 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1990

The taxpayer’s argument is ingenious, and because it is difficult to follow, the argument is probably best set out in the taxpayer’s counsel’s own words as they appear in the taxpayer’s brief: Clearly, Section 4e does not … A party having qualified as an attorney before the passage of the attorneys’ test oath act, of February 14th, 1866, did not require [sic] such a vested right in the office of attorney, as released him from being required

State of West Virginia ex rel. Joshua Mena, D.O. v. The Honorable David J. Sims, Judge of the Circuit Court of Ohio CountyandState of West Virginia ex rel. Wheeling Health Right v. The Honorable David J. Sims, Judge of the Circuit Court of Ohio CountyandState of West Virginia ex rel. Wheeling Hospital, Inc. v. The Honorable David J. Sims, Judge of the Circuit Court of Ohio County

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 20, 2024

of this section, the health care provider is entitled to prelitigation mediation before a qualified mediator upon written demand to the claimant. .... … Clearly, this lawsuit was filed in violation of the MPLA and the circuit court should have dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See PrimeCare Medical, 242 W.

Liskey v. Snyder

56 W. Va. 610 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1904

it to the extent to which Rickard qualifies it in his testimony. … ‘This clearly appears from Rickard’s letter of January 27, 1900.

In re C.T.-1 and C.T.-2

West Virginia Supreme Court · Aug 31, 2022

These findings shall not be set aside by a reviewing court unless clearly erroneous. … Ultimately, we concluded that B.S., the child who resided outside of petitioner’s home, “did not qualify as either an ‘abused child’ or a ‘neglected child’ as those terms are defined by statute.” Id. at *11.

Town of Fulton v. Norteman

60 W. Va. 562 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1906

In such cases, invalidity seems clearly tobe referable, not to unreasonableness in the ordinance, but to lack of municipal power. … The ordinance under which this conviction was obtained, on its face, bears some relation to the subjects of protection to health and immunity from injury, annoyance and offensiveness; but its effect is limited to three subjects

Cathe v. Doddridge County Board of Education

200 W. Va. 521 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1997

We review the denial of a request for attorneys’ fees in a mandamus action under a clearly erroneous standard. … Federal policy also explicitly permits students who are expelled to receive educational services that are clearly distinguishable from the student's regular school placement. Id. .

State Ex Rel. Rist v. Underwood

206 W. Va. 258 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1999

Its purpose is to establish definiteness and certainty in the salaries of public officers and to protect and safeguard the independence, the security, and the efficiency of the occupant of every public office. … We must stress, however, that the holding in this ease does not pose a significant obstacle to otherwise highly qualified persons gaining appointive office.

State Ex Rel. Heck's, Inc. v. Gates

149 W. Va. 421 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1965

Though as contended by the petitioners, the foregoing quoted statements may be considered as dicta, they indicate clearly that this Court regarded the Sunday closing statute as secular rather than religious in character. … “Each of the ‘exclusions’ qualifies an otherwise broad generic category.

Cross v. Trapp

170 W. Va. 459 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1982

The court, however, qualified its holding concerning expert testimony as follows: We are not to be understood as holding, however, that expert medical testimony can be dispensed with entirely in cases of informed consent. … Clearly, those instructions were more favorable to Dr. Trapp than instructions would have been if written pursuant to the patient need standard.

State Ex Rel. Smith v. Kermit Lumber & Pressure Treating Co.

200 W. Va. 221 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1997

Dept. of Transportation, 926 P.2d 1200, 1202 (Colo.1996) (“ ‘In the states that continue to follow the nullum tempus doctrine, “when filing lawsuits in the posture of plaintiffs, [the states] are immune from statutes of limitations … The second quoted passage from (a)(1), stated in the past tense, clearly implies violations that have already occurred.

State v. Morris

227 W. Va. 76 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 19, 2010

Furthermore, [w]hether a witness is qualified to state an opinion is a matter which rests within the discretion of the trial court and its ruling on that point will not ordinarily be disturbed unless it clearly appears that … Helmick, 201 W.Va. 163 , 495 S.E.2d 262 (1997)(An error in admitting hearsay evidence is harmless where the same fact is proved *82 by an eyewitness or other evidence clearly establishes the defendant’s guilt). Mr.

Hoover v. West Virginia Board of Medicine

216 W. Va. 23 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 28, 2004

This position is clearly wrong.... If defendants’ position was correct, the need for the signature of local counsel would be obviated.”); Bachmann v. … There is no signature at the bottom of the form-Accordingly, the complaint is deemed insufficient on its face to qualify as a ‘signed complaint’ as required by the Administrative Code.”).

Matter of Dortch

199 W. Va. 571 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1997

Dortch should be admitted as he would seem to be otherwise duly qualified. The Board subsequently conducted an interview of the applicant on February 12, 1996, during its regularly-scheduled meeting. … Clearly, his criminal mischief was in no way attributable to his youth, immaturity or inexperience.