Case law

Appalachian Power Co. v. County Court of Mercer County

146 W. Va. 118 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1961

The case was submitted to the trial court for decision upon an undisputed state of facts established by the petition, an answer in behalf of the respondents, and a written stipulation of fact. … On the other hand, when a legislative enactment is clearly unconstitutional, the duty of the Court is plain.

State ex rel. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Bedell

228 W. Va. 252 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 1, 2011

Blank had failed to establish good cause for the issuance of any and all protective orders; rather, our prior opinion clearly explains that Mrs. … Effect is to be given to that which is clearly implied as well as to that which is expressed.

Smittle v. Gatson

195 W. Va. 416 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1995

Code, 21A-6-3(4) [1990] states, in pertinent part: For a week in which his total or partial unemployment is due to a stoppage of work which exists because of a labor dispute at the factory, establishment or other premises … These facts show the employees qualify for unemployment benefits under the employer shutdown exception of W.Va.Code, 21A-6-3(4) [1990].

Adams v. Londeree

139 W. Va. 748 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1954

In other words, not being a resident of the State for a period of one year, he could not qualify for the office. … The same conclusions are clearly reflected under the present State “consent” statute and the applicable Act of Congress quoted above.

State ex rel. Baker v. Morgan County War Memorial Hospital

228 W. Va. 185 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 15, 2010

The document prepared by the hospital clearly states that the defined benefit pension plan “was terminated].]” … The hospital argues that IRS Revenue Ruling 89-87 sets forth three events that must occur in order for a pension plan to terminate: In order to terminate a qualified plan, the date of termination must be established, the

Barbina v. Curry

221 W. Va. 41 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 15, 2007

Barbina failed to establish that a special relationship existed in this case. … Barbina invoked the special relationship doctrine in order to overcome the general immunity the Sheriff has under W. Va.Code § 29-12A-5 (1986) (Repl.Vo0l.2004). 12 .

State v. Kendall

219 W. Va. 686 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 29, 2006

“Whether Defendants can establish exigent circumstances is a disputed question of fact for the jury to decide.” Id. at *3. … Dennison in any manner and that it was not required to offer immunity for Mr. Dennison’s testimony. In essence, the State contends that Mr.

Global Capital of World Peace v. Norma Wagoner, Assessor

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 9, 2017

Thus, Petitioners “are clearly narrowing the pool of this state’s citizenry who can potentially benefit from their services.” Id. at 284, 607 S.E.2d at 390. … Having failed to meet the exclusive use test established in Wellsburg, Petitioner is not entitled to the exemption from ad valorem property taxes set forth in West Virginia Code § 11-3­ 9.

Stephen Maynard v. Wexford Health Sources

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 23, 2016

In that deposition, petitioner qualified Dr. Weaver as an expert in the areas of dental, oral, and maxillofacial surgery. Dr. … This matter is clearly a medical professional liability case.

Flanagan v. Mott

145 W. Va. 220 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 17, 1960

The evidence does not clearly establish the time which elapsed between the time the bus was completely stopped and the time of the impact. The bus driver testified that period of time to be “fifteen or twenty seconds”. … Since the evidence clearly establishes that the City of Keyser had enacted no ordinance relating to the regulation of traffic on Memorial Bridge, we do not consider any question which could arise in the event of the existence

State ex rel. Orlofske v. City of Wheeling

212 W. Va. 538 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 8, 2002

Under these provisions, health plan sponsors must provide to each qualified beneficiary who would lose coverage due to a “qualifying event” 5 notification that he/she may continue to elect to receive coverage. … A "qualifying event” means with respect to any covered employee, any of the following events which, but for the continuation coverage required under this subchap-ter, would result in the loss of coverage of a qualified beneficiary

Jefferson Utilities, Inc. v. Jefferson County Board of Zoning Appeals

218 W. Va. 436 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 30, 2005

Jefferson Utilities is regulated by the Public Service Commission in connection with its provision of-water to citizens of Jefferson County, West Virginia, and clearly qualifies as a “public utility” under the laws of this … Those proceedings, which entail the presentation of evidence and the making of findings, are clearly quasi-judicial in nature.

State Ex Rel. Wiseman v. Henning

212 W. Va. 128 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 2, 2002

Hussein’s opinion could “show no basis in established scientific knowledge because it has not been subjected to testing, peer review or publication, an established error rate, controlling standards, or a general acceptance … The petitioners contend that the trial court’s ruling is clearly erroneous as a matter of law.

In re K.R. and J.R.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 9, 2018

The circuit court also reiterated that petitioners did not qualify as the children’s psychological parents. … These findings shall not be set aside by a reviewing court unless clearly erroneous.

Morgan v. Mayes

170 W. Va. 687 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1982

Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 169 W.Va. 698 , 289 S.E.2d 679 (1982); (retroactively applying our abolition of interspousal immunity). Nowhere is this policy more evident than in workmen’s compensation cases. … Stewart, 128 W.Va. 703 , 37 S.E.2d 563 (1946), is disapproved. 4 As an *690 heir who would take in the absence of a will, appellant clearly is an interested person entitled to attempt to impeach that will. Jackson v.

Goldstein v. Peacemaker Props., LLC

241 W. Va. 720 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 15, 2019

Here, in drafting this Statute, the Legislature did not intend to preempt this local authority, and in fact, clearly designated the same. … This, they argue, demonstrates that the circuit court's order rests on a clearly erroneous understanding of the facts of the case. We do not agree.

Carper v. United Fuel Gas Co.

78 W. Va. 433 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 16, 1916

But that relation had not been established, when the acts complained of here took place. … The 'qualified condition is the mildest and must equitable of the three provisions.

State ex rel. Grant County Commission v. Judge Nelson

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2021

from liability pursuant to the Tort Claims Act regardless. 1 The concurrence/dissent’s view that “person” necessarily means anyone who does not otherwise qualify as one of the other designations under … However, having established that Ms.

Martin v. White

74 W. Va. 628 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1914

These objections were based on disqualification under the following provision of the statute: “No person shall be qualified to hold the office of mayor, recorder, or councilman of such city, town or village unless he is a … Until the disqualification of those who were found to be elected on the face of the returns is established according to law, petitioners clearly do not show themselves entitled.

Alex Lyon & Son v. James R. Leach

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 15, 2020

The language used by the defendant in its advertising and catalog clearly indicates a requirement of a minimum bid of $200,000, and just as clearly indicates an intent that the defendant was conducting an absolute auction … Lerch) is qualified to be a bidder.