Case law

Cooper v. City of Charleston

218 W. Va. 279 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 1, 2005

Code § 8-13-13 are presumptively valid unless they are clearly unreasonable. … The burden of proof lies with the appellant to prove that the user fee is clearly unreasonable and that it clearly fails to reasonably serve the purpose for which it was enacted.

State Ex Rel. Davis Trust Co. v. Sims

130 W. Va. 623 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1947

As stated in the opinion in the Cashman case, no conduct by the State was established which if engaged in by a private person would amount to negligence. … In the present proceeding it is clearly established that the conduct of the represent *637 atives of the State is such that if it had been effected by a private person it would have constituted negligence.

Trimboli v. Board of Education

167 W. Va. 792 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1981

The law clearly *795 contemplates that professionally trained teachers, principals and superintendents shall have exclusive control of these matters.” … We are of the opinion that the Board of Education did not establish compliance with Rule 5300(6)(a).

State v. MM

256 S.E.2d 549 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1979

Whether a witness is qualified to express 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 its discretion … The court below clearly abused its discretion in holding the sheriff and the trooper were qualified as experts in the matters regarding which they testified. Moore, Kelly & Reddish, Inc. v.

US Steel Min. Co., LLC v. Helton

219 W. Va. 1 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2006

We need not detail their undisputed submissions that establish the great magnitude of importance attendant to our resolution of the issues in the instant case. … The sale of the coal is merely the event that establishes the basis for calculating the tonnage or value of the coal for purposes of ascertaining the amount of tax due.

STATE EX REL. CHARLES TOWN HOSP. v. Sanders

556 S.E.2d 85 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 9, 2001

Rydland's application for staff privileges in an attempt to establish whether the Hospital knew of various professional complaints that had been lodged against Dr. Rydland when it made these decisions. … Provided, That information, documents or records otherwise available from original sources are not to be construed as immune from discovery or use in any civil action merely because they were presented during proceedings

Price v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc.

217 W. Va. 663 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 14, 2005

Van Zandt, 120 W.Va. 452 , 199 S.E. 65 (1938). 5 *669 Syllabus point 3 of Horchler holds: “It is not prejudicial error against a defendant in a law action for the trial court to place in the jury box twenty-four qualified … In addition to peremptory challenges, the Tawney opinion concerned immunity under the West Virginia workers’ compensation system. The portion of Tawney concerning immunity was subsequently superseded by statute.

Roberts v. Consolidation Coal Co.

208 W. Va. 218 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 19, 2000

a system which compensates even though the injury or death of an employee may be caused by his own fault or the fault of a co-employee; that the immunity established in sections six and six-a [§§ 23-2-6 and 23-2-6a], article … the workers’ compensation system except as herein expressly provided; that, in enacting the immunity provisions of this chapter, the Legislature intended to create a legislative standard for loss of that immunity of more

Frank's Shoe Store v. West Virginia Human Rights Commission

179 W. Va. 53 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1986

The Court held that a prima facie case is established by a complainant by: showing (i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; … The threshold question is: what must an individual do in order to establish entitlement to back pay?

State v. Hutzler

223 W. Va. 461 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 14, 2009

In the instant case, the Magistrate Court of Jefferson County clearly did not have jurisdiction of the burglary and grand larceny offenses because these offenses are felonies. … As set forth above, the double jeopardy clause provides immunity from further prosecution where a court having jurisdiction has acquitted the accused.

State v. Sharp

103 S.E.2d 792 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1958

who executed the last mentioned certificate was, on the date thereof, "Assistant Chief of the Consular Administration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, duly commissioned and qualified … has held that when an attorney appears at the bar of a court in a matter being litigated, there is a presumption of his authority to represent his client and, though the presumption may be rebutted, evidence to do so must clearly

State v. Cook

81 W. Va. 686 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1918

Did the evidence offered uppn this plea in abatement and upon the motion to quash the petit jury panel establish the facts alleged? … than one-third of the persons qualified for jury service were of the colored race.

Teri Sneberger v. Jerry Morrison, d/b/a Jerry Morrison Construction

235 W. Va. 654 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 11, 2015

However, the evidence also clearly showed that the defects were attributable to Mr. Morrison’s failure to prepare an adequate foundation for the chimney and Mr. … Rockwell would not have been qualified as a masonry expert even if Ms. Sneberger sought to qualify him as such. . Mr. Morrison testified that Ms.

Vinson v. Butcher

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 18, 2020

Butcher has failed to establish that any of the John Doe defendants were personally and directly responsible for the conduct giving rise to her section 1983 claim. While Ms. … Ed. 2d 494 (1992) (“[T]o qualify as a prevailing party, a civil rights plaintiff must obtain at least some relief on the merits of his claim.

Philip Fisher, D.O. W. Va. Board of Osteopathic Medicine

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 3, 2016

In other words, the findings must be clearly wrong to warrant judicial interference. . . . … With regard to Rule 702, we have stated that, “to qualify a witness as an expert on th[e] standard of care, the party offering the witness must establish that the witness has more than a casual familiarity with the standard

Bills v. Hardy

228 W. Va. 341 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 18, 2011

Hearing Officer Thornton acknowledged that “[ejxtensive testimony and documentary evidence clearly show that the Claimant [Mr. … The Medicaid Home and Community-Based Mentally Retarded/Developmentally Delayed Waiver Program is a program established by Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396 -1396v (2006).

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

183 W. Va. 136 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1990

Should the standards for attorneys be any less than the standards established for Caesar's wife? … This immunity was granted before Boettner entered into a plea agreement.

United Bank, Inc. v. Blosser

218 W. Va. 378 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 29, 2005

The foregoing statement clearly reflects that Dr. … It is important to note, however, that this holding clearly has no impact on the question of whether a trust qualifies for tax exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code. 10 .

State of West Virginia v. Daniel L. Herbert

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 25, 2014

The Defendant’s lawyer moved that McGuire be granted immunity and the prosecution agreed. … The appendix-record does not specify which type of immunity McGuire was granted. For a discussion on the distinction between use and transactional immunity, See N.

David Ballard, Kevin McCourt, Jess Mattox, and Hobert Allen v. Miguel Angel Delgado

West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2019

Ed. 2d 565 (2009), “[t]rial courts now have the discretion regarding the order in which [the] two inquiries [for qualified immunity] are considered”). … Accordingly, the evidence was insufficient to establish deliberate indifference, and the correctional officers were entitled to qualified immunity.1 For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.