Case law

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.

State v. Bailey

154 W. Va. 25 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1970

On August 5, 1969, the court fixed September 15, 1969 as the date for a hearing on a plea of immunity by the defendant and on that day she filed a motion to suppress the statements made by her. … The principle is well established that the jurisdiction of this Court, original as well as appellate, is conferred by and is derived wholly from the Constitution and the statutes of this State enacted in pursuance of the

Kelley & Moyers v. Bowman

68 W. Va. 49 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1910

It is a well established rule of construction that it is not permitted to interpret what needs no construction. … To thus qualify or deny this power of the hoard eve must run counter to the rule that hardly needs any authority, but is clearly stated in Railroad Co. v. Traction Co., 56.W. Va. 18.

Tony T. Gerlach v. David Ballard

233 W. Va. 141 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 28, 2013

“The Double Jeopardy Clause in Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution, provides immunity from further prosecution where a court having jurisdiction has acquitted the accused. … The petitioner’s argument is based upon his contention that second degree murder is established by proving an intent to harm, which he says is the same intent that must be proven to establish the offense of death of a

Neil Williams v. Dennis Dingus, Warden

West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 17, 2015

We find that petitioner fails to show that this letter qualifies as newly discovered evidence under the applicable standard set forth in the Syllabus of State v. … III, § 17, prisoners have a Constitutional right to 5 In West Virginia, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are governed by the two-pronged test established in Strickland v.

Childress v. MUZZLE

222 W. Va. 129 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 19, 2008

Additionally, we believe that the Act was clearly designed to serve not only the interest of qualifying unemployed persons, but also the general public. 3 The unemployment compensation program is an insurance program, and … If otherwise qualified for unemployment compensation benefits, they would not be disqualified under the above-mentioned section of Law.

Eldercare of Jackson County, LLC d/b/a Eldercare Health and Rehabilitation, a Tennessee company Community Health Association d/b/a Jackson General Hospital, a West Virginia corporation and Irvin John Snyder, D.O. v. Rosemary Lambert and Carolyn Hinzman, Individually, and as Co-Executors of the Estate of Delmar P. Fields

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 12, 2024

Respondents allege that Eldercare has a history of failing to establish and maintain an effective infection control policy at its facility. … If the legislative intent is clearly expressed in the statute, then this Court is not permitted to construe the statutory provision but, rather, is obliged to apply its plain language.

Michael Thornsbury v. W. Va. Consolidated Public Retirement Board, etc.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 9, 2018

We review challenges to findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard; conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.” Syl. Pt. 4, Burgess v. Porterfield, 196 W. Va. 178, 469 S.E.2d 114 (1996). … Insofar as [Dodd] holds that an employee’s misconduct results in a forfeiture of the entire pension, it is still good law because the requirement of honorable service has been established in advance and

Hertzog v. Fox

141 W. Va. 849 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1956

in the minutes of the council that the petitioner had been duly elected to the office of councilman but whether it did or did not issue and deliver to the petitioner a certificate of the result of the election does not clearly … Because of the marked difference between the statute involved and the facts established in the Qualls case and the applicable statute and the undisputed material facts in the present proceeding the decision in the Qualls

Peak v. Ratliff

185 W. Va. 548 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1991

However, we also reject the standard set out by the Kansas Supreme Court in Thornton, which gives total immunity to the pursuing officer. … Akers, and requested that a roadblock be established at the intersection of Glenwood Road and Route 460, approximately 2.5 miles away. Mr.

Joshua Dwayne Plante v. Josh Ward, Interim Superintendent, Mount Olive Correctional Complex

West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 20, 2024

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 review.” … Further, petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is governed by the two-pronged test established in Strickland v.

Peneschi v. National Steel Corp.

170 W. Va. 511 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1982

Rylands controls and clearly tells us where the liability lies. … Standing alone this is clearly an incorrect statement of the law.

Paxton v. Crabtree

184 W. Va. 237 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1990

Moreover, the Magistrate, under the test outlined above, would qualify as the employer of the magistrate assistant. … It is not urged that judicial immunity protects Magistrate King. In light of Forrester v.

In Re: B.C., D.C. and B.C.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 15, 2015

Ultimately, petitioner did not qualify for appointed counsel and remained unrepresented in the proceedings below. … These findings shall not be set aside by a reviewing court unless clearly erroneous.

Aaron Browning v. David Hickman

235 W. Va. 640 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 10, 2015

The circuit court established a deadline of “Thursday at noon” to locate the caller and set a deposition; otherwise, the court ruled that the 911 call would be excluded from evidence at trial. … Clearly, the 911 call was placed shortly after the accident.

Committee On Legal Ethics of West Virginia State Bar v. Pietranton

143 W. Va. 11 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1957

His unreliability is clearly demonstrated by the numerous differences in his testimony, as *25 given at different times, his biased attitude as a witness, and by his several attempts to obtain immunity from prosecution as … effect in the determination of the question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to fully and clearly establish the charges contained in the complaint of the committee. *31 It is strongly contended that the fact that three

Thacker v. Crow

141 W. Va. 361 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1955

Clearly, a parcel of ground, a play field, does not constitute a school even though used for certain activities deemed educational. … By use of the word “door” the Legislature clearly intended to refer to a building, not to an entrance to a playground, or a field, and by mandatorily requiring the refusal of a license to an establishment within three hundred

Mandolidis v. Elkins Industries, Inc.

246 S.E.2d 907 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1978

Certainly this does not establish intentional injury. … to be a deduction or conclusion from the facts so established.

Amy Crites 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.

State v. Riley

151 W. Va. 364 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1966

Kidd appeared at the trial in answer to the summons issued by the state and was placed on the witness stand; whereupon, he refused to testify on advice of counsel unless he was granted immunity from prosecution. … All twelve qualified under cross examination as jurors to give the defendant a fair and impartial trial and stated that it would take evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction.