Case law

Robert Eagle v. Eastern W. Va. Community and Technical College, etc.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 7, 2017

Terrell’s immunity. … The circuit court clearly imposed on Petitioner a higher standard than this Court has established for the sufficiency of pleadings in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Robert Eagle v. Eastern W. Va. Community and Technical College, etc.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 24, 2017

Terrell’s immunity. … The circuit court clearly imposed on Petitioner a higher standard than this Court has established for the sufficiency of pleadings in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Paxton v. State Department of Tax & Revenue

192 W. Va. 213 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1994

The Lottery Commission is clearly a public entity within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and it provides an aid, benefit or service on a continuing basis to its licensee. … with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability, nor may a public entity establish requirements for the programs or activities of licensees or certified entities that subject qualified individuals with disabilities

Haislop v. Edgell

215 W. Va. 88 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 10, 2003

My own judgment is that in an appropriate case, substantive due process and equal protection would require that an offender who could clearly demonstrate rehabilitation be able to go before a circuit court and show that they … of the prosecuting attorney, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, that the qualifying offense involved multiple victims or multiple violations of the qualifying offense; or (C) has been convicted or has been

Arnazzi v. Quad/Graphics, Inc.

218 W. Va. 36 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 17, 2005

issue before the circuit court in the instant case was the lack of legally-required training of the appellant on the safe use of a forklift. [1] The evidence showing this lack of training — and that the lack of training qualified … However, beginning with Mayles , this Court has ignored the Legislature's intent by consistently weakening the five-part test of W.Va.Code § 23-4-2(d)(2)(ii) and making it easier for creative plaintiffs to defeat the immunity

State v. LONGERBEAM

226 W. Va. 535 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 22, 2010

Given that the second sentence of the definition is clearly inapplicable, we proceed to determine whether Appellant qualified as a “custodian” by examining whether he had “actual physical possession or care and custody” of … I think you know the answer [is] it is clearly the adult.

Arthur Patton v. County of Berkeley, West Virginia

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 12, 2019

Patton had not filed his civil suit within the two-year statute of limitations under West Virginia Code § 55-2-12,3 and that the statute of limitations was not tolled because the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office did not qualify … Patton moved to alter or amend the circuit court’s judgment, arguing that its decision to dismiss his civil claims was clearly erroneous because a sheriff should be considered a constitutional officer within the executive

State v. Burton

163 W. Va. 40 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1979

The ruling was clearly correct, and while the comment was gratuitous, it was not prejudicial in any material degree. … It has long been established in our law that venue can be established by circumstantial evidence. Syllabus Point 2, State v. Stephenson, 114 W. Va. 458 , 172 S.E. 533 (1933); State v. Alderson, 74 W.

Stephenson v. Cavendish

134 W. Va. 361 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 9, 1950

It is the established law of this jurisdiction that one who is seised of a base qualified fee may convey his estate, but that the quality of the estate follows such estate into the hands of the grantee and upon the happening … E. 621 , this Court said: “This statute has since been repealed. * * * It is clearly a statute of limitation.”

In re L.M.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 5, 2021

These findings shall not be set aside by a reviewing court unless clearly erroneous. … These findings shall not be set aside by a reviewing court unless clearly erroneous.

In re: N.R., A.R., AND A.W.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 7, 2019

These findings shall not be set aside by a reviewing court unless clearly erroneous. … Clearly, a “qualified expert witness” under the ICWA is not required to have specialized knowledge of tribal social and cultural standards in every instance.

Persinger v. Peabody Coal Co.

196 W. Va. 707 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1996

Courtney, 190 W.Va. 126 , 437 S.E.2d 436 (1993) (stating that “in order to establish fraud, the circumstances must be clearly alleged and proved”); W. Va. R. Civ. … Monsanto Co., 822 F.Supp. 327 (S.D.W.Va.1992), stated, "[hinder the Act, an employer who is otherwise entitled to immunity under § 23-2-6 may lose immunity in only one of two ways: (1) by defaulting in payments required by

In Re Daniel D.

211 W. Va. 79 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 15, 2002

Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995), we also explained: ‘Where 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 … Protective or limiting orders may also be utilized in conjunction with the grant of use immunity. In State v.

Ewing v. Board of Education

202 W. Va. 228 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1998

In this regard, the court [b]elieve[d] that a purpose behind this statute is to establish a means of hiring, in which certain preferences are established. … Va.Code § 18A-4-7a (1993) (Repl.Vol. 1997) clearly gave Ms.

Estate of Elizabeth E. Fox

131 W. Va. 429 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 18, 1948

Fox seems to have resided in Morgantown, Monongalia County, West Virginia, but on a date, not clearly shown in the record, she went to live with her son and daughter-in-law at their home in the- State of Pennsylvania. … Such findings are clearly correct and will not be disturbed by this Court. Accordingly, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County is affirmed. Affirmed.

Hancock County Board of Education v. Hawken

209 W. Va. 259 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1999

Code, 18-29-1, et seq. (1985), and based upon findings of fact, should not be reversed unless clearly wrong.” Syl. pt. 1 Randolph County Board of Education v. Scalia, 182 W.Va. 289 , 887 S.E.2d 524 (1989). … Our Legislature has devoted great attention to the regulation of school service personnel, and has established an exhaustive list of class titles 3 describing the general duties of any person working as a school service employee

SER Justin S. Golden, Sr. v. Hon. Tod J. Kaufman, Judge

236 W. Va. 635 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2014

By its use of prohibition to alter long-established common law, rather than as a means to enforce and uphold existing law, the majority acted in a manner that was highly irregular and clearly unwarranted. 3 B. … Co., supra (establishing strict liability in tort for manufactured products); Harless v.

Christopher Bird v. Kanawha County Board of Education

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 4, 2019

First, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in concluding that Policy G68 was not arbitrary and capricious; he contends that the policy was arbitrary and capricious because it does not establish a ban or similar … Therefore, as a regular employee, petitioner held a place among the top priority group of applicants, and in that group he was the most senior applicant qualified for the position.

Makarenko v. Scott

132 W. Va. 430 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1949

But if such relation did exist between them the decision of this Court in the Tawney case is clearly to the effect that the workmen’s compensation statute does not relieve a fellow employee from liability for his negligent … That decision makes it plain beyond question that no such immunity exists in *452 favor of a fellow employee by virtue of the statute.

State ex rel. Zickefoose v. West

145 W. Va. 498 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1960

“Since a constitution is a fundamental charter of government a limitation upon eligibility for office expressed therein presents only the question of the meaning of the particular disqualification, as its validity is established … If the intention is manifest from the language used and leads to no absurd conclusion, courts must give such provisions the effect clearly intended.” 4 M. J., Constitutional Law, Section 7, page 94.