Case law

Charles L. v. David Ballard, Warden, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 6, 2019

We review the final order and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard; the underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of law are subject to a de novo … It would be entirely speculative as to whether the victim would have qualified for a taint expert or that a taint expert could have been found who would have testified in a way favorable to Petitioner such that it would have

Jacobs v. Jacobs

100 W. Va. 585 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1926

Winnie M. qualified as. executrix, giving bond without surety, and took charge of the estate as such. … There is practically no dispute of fact; and the issue is clearly defined. Under the pleadings and facts, is appellant *591 entitled, to dower in the real estate of which her husband died seized and possessed?

SER American Electric Power v. Hon. David W. Nibert, Judge

237 W. Va. 14 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 10, 2016

Such presumption may be defeated, however, if the remedy provided by the alternative forum is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no remedy at all. … Although we recognize that, generally, to constitute “mass litigation” there first must be a minimum of two or more civil actions to consider such a transfer, 8 we have recognized that, sometimes, a singular case may qualify

Middle-West Concrete Forming & Equipment Co. v. General Insurance Co. of America

165 W. Va. 280 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1980

Appellant’s representative testified that removal of the equipment during the work shutdown would have entailed using qualified carpenters and laborers and construction equipment which appellant does not have in its employ … That is not sufficient grounds to justify the court’s action in setting aside the verdict where there was clearly enough evidence to support a different conclusion.

State of West Virginia v. Kevin Travis Costello

West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 2, 2021

The rule in West Virginia is that parties must speak clearly in the circuit court, on pain that, if they forget their lines, they will likely be bound forever to hold their peace. … The State maintains that the sum total of the documents it presented conclusively, unequivocally, and sufficiently establishes that Mr.

Hartley Hill Hunt Club v. County Commission of Ritchie County

220 W. Va. 382 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 11, 2007

As we have said before, “[wjhere the issue on an 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.” … In other words, Barnette established the principle that courts may define and guard constitutional rights.

State v. Willett

223 W. Va. 394 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 19, 2009

Moreover, in the case of clearly erroneous admissions of “other acts” evidence, the “overwhelming evidence” argument is circular. … It is not too much to require *406 both that district judges exercise greater care in excluding clearly erroneous “other acts” evidence...

Bilbrey v. Workers' Compensation Commissioner

186 W. Va. 319 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1991

Although the Legislature subsequently amended Craddock in 1986, this Court has clearly demonstrated its obligation to require certain standards when none exist below. 5 The cases now before us are no exception. … Thus, only physicians who are qualified otologists or otolar-yngologists are permitted to interpret the results of audiograms.

D.B., D.B. v. J.R.

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 22, 2015

She was certainly qualified to give her medical opinion concerning the child’s asthma being aggravated by secondhand smoke. … Further, “‘[w]here the issue on an 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.’

Stover v. Davis

57 W. Va. 196 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1905

permitted to show to the satisfaction of the jury that more than three years before the action was commenced he had disclaimed to hold under Voss’ title; that Voss or those claiming under him had notice of such disclaimer, clearly … It is laid down as a general rule embracing in terms tenants in common, trustees, mortgagees and lessees, but disallowing none of the exceptions or limitations which qualify it, and exclude from its operation all cases where

Davis v. McBride

221 W. Va. 240 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 12, 2007

Furthermore, “[f]indings of fact made by a trial court in a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding will not be set aside or reversed on appeal by this Court unless such findings are clearly wrong.” … Va.Code § 56-6-12 (1923) (Repl.Vol.2005) (“[I]f it shall appear to the court that such person is not a qualified juror or does not stand indifferent in the cause, another shall be called and placed in his stead for the trial

Reynolds v. City Hospital, Inc.

207 W. Va. 101 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 21, 2000

court charged the jury as follows: The Rules of Evidence provide that if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge might assist a jury in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness qualified … The plaintiff must then establish the professional defendant’s negligence by demonstrating that his conduct deviated from the standard.

JWCF, LP v. Steven Farruggia

232 W. Va. 417 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 7, 2013

Farruggia, that a prima facie case of discrimination had been established under West Virginia Code § 23-5A-1. … Farruggia never qualified for reinstatement to his former position and had not obtained a release from his treating physician. Mr.

Gum v. Dudley

202 W. Va. 477 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1997

We have determined that the evidence in the record establishes, by a preponderance, that Mr. … We qualified the general disclosure requirement of Vapor Corp. in syllabus point 5 of Reager v.

State v. Wyatt

200 W. Va. 410 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1997

That is clearly not what occurred here. … The majority accurately stated that evidence of the battered woman’s syndrome, to be considered, must meet the qualifications for admissibility of scientific evidence, and the expert must be properly qualified. 4 However,

State v. Bickle

53 W. Va. 597 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1903

The evidence was clearly immaterial and properly excluded. … While the cross examination was in violation of a rule of practice which ought to be established as shown in Hatfield Case, 48 W.

State v. Easton

203 W. Va. 631 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1998

Second, the statute plainly and clearly establishes the possible criminal penalties that may* be imposed for the commission of conduct prohibited by § 9-6-15(b). … Therefore, the plain language of the two relevant penal statutes clearly indicates that the defendants were convicted of and sentenced for two distinct criminal offenses.

SER U-Haul v. Hon. Paul Zakaib, Jr., Judge

West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 3, 2013

The fact that the petitioner’s prior contracts with the respondents made no mention of an arbitration clause does not establish a “course of dealing” between the parties; rather, it establishes a consistent but unilateral … In the instant case, the arbitration provision at issue was not even contained in the contract; it was clearly, unambiguously and conspicuously not there. 5 But in this case

Davidson v. Shoney's Big Boy Restaurant

181 W. Va. 65 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1989

Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416, 1422 (9th Cir.1985): “[I]n some cases, a job requirement that screens out qualified handicapped individuals on the basis of possible future injury is necessary. … The margin between the two populations is clearly indistinct. [Id. at 610.]’ ” 1a . After her discharge from Shoney's, Mrs.

State v. Hobbs

168 W. Va. 13 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1981

In other words, they are [to be] qualified legally and it’s to be a cross-section of the community.” (Emphasis added). … In both cases, the refusal to allow a full hearing on the issue of unconstitutional exclusion was clearly reversible error.