Case law

Amy Crites 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.

Price v. Sims

134 W. Va. 173 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1950

The facts alleged in the petition, which upon demurrer must be taken as true, and as established by the evidence produced before the State Court of Claims, clearly show the negligence of the State Road Commission in the failure … The immunity of the sovereignty against being called into its own court to answer for breaches of contract or for a tort was fully established at common law, and the principle is one of the landmarks of the law.

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.

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.

Pioneer Co. v. Hutchinson

159 W. Va. 276 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1975

The evidence presented by the plaintiff established that the company was qualified by experience, personnel, equipment, and financial stability to perform the duties under the contract. … The evidence further established that the corporation was qualified and able to furnish a performance bond to secure performance of its contractual duties.

Antero Resources Corporation v. Dale W. Steager

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 17, 2020

“To prevent evasion [of this tax], it is presumed that all sales and services are subject to the tax until the contrary is clearly established.” W. Va. Code § 11-15-6(b). … or do not qualify for the Direct Use Exemption.

Trent v. Cook

198 W. Va. 601 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1996

Appellant further argues that the custom-designed 6 state insurance policy is immune from the requirements of West Virginia Code § 33-6-31. … Furthermore, the "NAMED INSURED ENDORSEMENT” that is in the record clearly establishes that Appellee was not a named insured under the policy provisions. As we recently noted in Powderidge Unit Owners Association v.

In re N.L.

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 13, 2024

In June 2022, a report indicated that the child displayed regression in eating and speech, showed signs of aggression that she had not displayed before being returned to the parents, and was behind on her immunizations. … Further, the evidence clearly established that modification was in the child’s best interests, given that the child’s health regressed in the short period she was returned to the petitioner’s care.

Drake v. Snider

216 W. Va. 574 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 12, 2004

These facts establish that Ms. … Muncy was driving qualified as a non-owned car under the policies because it was clearly not owned by anyone residing in her domicile. 13 IV.

Young v. Saldanha

189 W. Va. 330 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1993

This provision clearly evidences a legislative intent to require formal action to effect a waiver of peer review confidentiality. … of prejudice and confusion,’ that they are admissible to establish a pattern or habit.

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

State Ex Rel. Harwood v. Tynes

137 W. Va. 52 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1952

When she satisfied these requirements she established her clear right to the relief which she seeks in this proceeding and which was granted by the order *59 entered by this Court on March. 11, 1952. … The holding in that case is clearly distinguishable from and inapplicable to the case at bar.

Poling v. Board of Education

215 W. Va. 231 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2004

Elsewhere in the Code, objective criteria are established for the purposes of evaluating seniority, 1 and qualifications. 2 A holding that W. … Va.Code 18A-4-8, and the appellant clearly met that job title. In this Court’s view, the fact that Ms. Arnold and Mr.

State of West Virgina v. Alex Holden

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 26, 2020

However, in addition to the de novo standard, where the circuit court conducts an evidentiary hearing upon the motion, this Court’s ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of review is invoked concerning the circuit court’s findings … However, in addition to the de novo standard, where the circuit court conducts an evidentiary hearing upon the motion, this Court’s ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of review is invoked

SER State of WV v. The Honorable Bridget Cohee, Judge of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, and Lateef Jabrall McGann

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 25, 2025

We also recognize that federal and non- West Virginia state crimes constitute qualifying offenses when they have “the same or substantially similar elements as a qualifying offense[.]” Id. § 61-11-18(d). Mr. … Consequently, “a defendant bears a heavy burden of establishing that he has been singled out over others similarly situated and that the selectivity in favor of him is based on some impermissi[ble] consideration as race

State of West Virginia ex rel. The Honorable Timothy L. Sweeney, Judge of the Circuit Court of Pleasants County v. William Mundy, Chairman of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board Hearing Panel Subcommittee Loretta Walker Sites, Gail T. Henderson Staples, and Cynthia Tawney, Members of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board Hearing Panel Subcommittee, Brian K. Carr M. Paul Marteney Harley O. Wagner Justin Matthew Raber Jay William Gerber, Jr. Ira Andre Richardson Jordan W. West Wells H. Dillon the West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board and the West Virginia Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 7, 2024

It has long been established that “[a] writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent a simple abuse of discretion by a trial court. … Va. 207, 475 S.E.2d 299 (1996). 11 In this related context of judicial immunity, this Court has previously held that a judicial officer is absolutely immune from civil liability for official

Spedden v. Board of Education

74 W. Va. 181 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1914

Deeming it to be for the best interests of the district to provide a school or department of practice in teaching for such of the young people residing in the district as desire *188 to qualify themselves thoroughly for the … profession of teaching, as in the other eases supposed, the board has made such provision, and, in doing so, seems clearly to have acted within its legal powers.

A. F. Thompson Mfg. Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.

93 W. Va. 3 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1923

Having qualified as an expert witness, and having testified as to the presence of hydrochloric acid in the rust, D. M. … Thompson, qualified as one informed as to the methods ,of refining asbestos and denied that acetic acid was used in the manufacture of commercial asbestos.

Gibson v. Gibson

172 W. Va. 183 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1983

If the trial court is unable to establish that one parent has clearly taken primary responsibility for the caring and nurturing duties of a child neither party shall have the benefit of the primary caretaker presumption.” … by both the mother and father, the court must determine in the first instance whether the primary caretaker is a fit parent, and where the primary *185 caretaker achieves the minimum, objective standard of behavior which qualifies

Montgomery Gen. Hosp. v. W. VA. HUMAN RIGHTS

346 S.E.2d 557 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1986

It is clear that the Commission correctly found that the complainant established a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. … The manual also provided that seniority be the determinative factor in establishing the order in which employees would be laid off in case of a reduction in force.