Case law

State v. King

64 W. Va. 546 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1908

The statute of 1898, clearly prohibits their sale. … It is well established that the Legislature may direct what evidence shall be required to prove a fact. It may fix the burden of proof.

Campbell's Adm'r v. White

14 W. Va. 122 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1878

These notes given by him for debts due from his father, and for money borrowed for his use previous to his death, and some, that were given soon after the death of his father and before he qualified as administrator, have … The master however is not bound to state inferences of law arising from the facts before him; and where facts are so clearly stated in a reportas necessarily to involve a particular consequence, it is for the court to act

State v. George K.

233 W. Va. 698 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 13, 2014

We have held that “[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.” Syl. pt. 1, Chrystal R.M. v. … Even if it was established that the child in this case did not and will not suffer any harm as a result of George K.’s acts, it does not follow that another child subject to a similar encounter in the future would also not

Evans v. Hutchinson

214 S.E.2d 453 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1975

The permissible extra-educational uses of school board facilities are clearly delineated in Code 1931, 18-5-19, as amended, *458 permitting, inter alia, use ". . . to promote and facilitate frequent meetings and associations … That case also recognized that, under Code 1931, 6-6-7, "to remove a person from office the charge against him must be established by satisfactory proof."

Goodman v. Searls, Superintendent

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 22, 2021

The majority grasps at straws to establish corroboration to excuse the absence of the Humphreys/Bolling instruction. … The State clearly utilized the accomplices’ guilty plea as a device to infer the guilt of petitioner.

Erik Patrick Wells v. Charles T. Miller, Prosecuting Attorney

West Virginia Supreme Court · Sep 22, 2016

This State’s statutes, as well as this Court’s prior cases interpreting those statutes, clearly address the issues raised in these proceedings and lead to the inevitable conclusion that Mr. … Wells and His Supporters The Legislature clearly delineates the path an independent candidate for public office must follow to have his name placed upon the general election ballot.

State v. Jessica Jane M.

226 W. Va. 242 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Sep 16, 2010

Consistent with this “clearly erroneous” standard, this Court has consistently held that the decision to allow or to refuse to allow a child’s testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed … Regardless of the precise articulation, some statements qualify under any definition-for example, ex parte testimony at a preliminary hearing.

State of West Virginia ex rel. West Virginia University Hospitals--East, Inc. v. The Honorable David M. Hammer, Judge of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 22, 2021

Trial Advoc. 503, 506 (2020). 4 Applied to this case, it appears that the plaintiffs can establish an injury in fact. … On this record, the plaintiffs clearly established an injury-in-fact. The majority opinion has wrongly conflated how the data was stolen with whether the victims of those thefts were injured.

Jacklin Romeo, Susan S. Rine, and Debra Snyder Miller v. Antero Resources Corporation

West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 6, 2024

“[T]he well-established rule [is] that a covenant arising by necessary implication is as much a part of the contract – is as effectually one of its terms – as if had been plainly expressed.” Brewster v. … But let’s be honest, everyone knows the point of sale of a house, the point of sale of a car, the point of sale of a pack of chewing gum. 5 Clearly, the point of sale is where

Hukill v. Guffey

37 W. Va. 425 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1892

The one great thing to be done was the specific act of boring; its breach clearly noncompensable with so small a sum as the commutation money. … And this can only _be established by legitimate testimony.

Tri-State Petroleum Corp. v. Kevin P. Coyne

814 S.E.2d 205 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 12, 2018

Jan. 5, 2005) (“[A] breach of fiduciary duty claim will survive the gist of the action doctrine only where the fiduciary relationship in question is well-established and clearly defined by Pennsylvania law or policy, such … interest in actions founded on contract.”). 51 medical expenses, damages to tangible personal property and similar out-of-pocket expenditures.”88 More broadly, to qualify

Bank v. Prager & Son

50 W. Va. 660 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1902

provided that on the execution and delivery thereof the said trustee should take full possession and custody of said property, make a full inventory thereof and have the same appraised as to value by three competent and qualified … This answer is clearly evasive and it is impossible to conclude from the answer whether he had per- - sonal knowledge of such pureliases or not.

Hoke v. Hoke

12 W. Va. 427 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1878

Hoke against any deficiency in said fund to meet his claim when established as above provided.” … The object of the 19th section of same chapter, was manifestly to qualify the operation and effect of said section 18.

Holly River Coal Co. v. Howell

36 W. Va. 489 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1892

The description of the two hundred acres was also clearly wanting in convenient certainty of description. *493 This defect was not cured by the verdict which followed the declaration; and judgment was given according to the … The land-office was established by Act May, 1779, which provided for grants. Act June, 1788, authorized what are called “inclusive” (exclusive) surveys, which lasted in effect until 1796.

Myllius v. Smith

53 W. Va. 173 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1903

The order qualified the consent to the defendants represented by counsel. Neither O. L. Rohrbaugh nor William Post had entered an appearance up to that time. … Rohrbaugh was sufficient upon which to establish his claim without reference to the status of the elder Rohrbaugh, who really had! no interest in the matter and never had any.

State of West Virginia v. John Henry Hoyle

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 22, 2019

But, the statute states unequivocally that its provisions apply retroactively to qualifying offenders. W. Va. … At the trial for these charges on September 16, 2015, the testimony of State Police Deputy David VanMeter and State Police Trooper James Cornelius established the following facts.

Schilling v. Short

15 W. Va. 780 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1879

The plaintiff also alleges that in the year 1869 the said *782 Chapman died, and that he, plaintiff, was duly appointed and qualified his administrator, and that the sums of money mentioned in said third and fourth single … Clearly not the purchase-money due from Hiram Short.

Webster Wagon Co. v. Home Insurance

27 W. Va. 314 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1885

This was the established usage. … An additional reason, which is paramount to all others, and which characterizes the whole case, is, that the premium-notes, whether uncollected or collected are upon the disclosure to be considered as a qualified pledge for

Kevin Goodman, Jr. v. Shelby Searls, Superintendent, Huttonsville Correctional Center

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 8, 2022

The majority grasps at straws to establish corroboration to excuse the absence of the Humphreys/Bolling instruction. … Clearly, the plea agreements and admissions of the accomplices in petitioner’s trial predominated all parties’ cases.

State v. Fields

225 W. Va. 753 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 21, 2010

Holding that finding to be clearly wrong, this Court indicated that, an accused continues to enjoy the assistance of counsel, even where the assistance is marginalized by the strength of the prosecution's evidence. … We have little trouble concluding that erroneous deprivation of the right to counsel of choice, "with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate, unquestionably qualifies as `structural error.'" [