Case law

W.VA. Nonintoxicating Beer Commr. v. Tavern

181 W. Va. 364 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1989

It is well-settled law in West Virginia that an administrative agency’s interpretation of its statutes are given great weight unless clearly wrong. See Dillon v. … Clearly the notice informed the respondents why the Commissioner did not renew their Class A beer license.

Alley v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc.

216 W. Va. 63 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2004

rulings of the circuit court concerning a new trial and its conclusion as to the existence of reversible error under an abuse of discretion standard, and we review the circuit court’s underlying factual findings under a clearly … For purposes of accommodation, the reason for the absence must be due to a qualified disability.

Yeshiareg Mulugeta v. Dimitri Misailidis

239 W. Va. 404 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 13, 2017

Moreover, included among the factors that the family court was required to consider in determining the amount of the spousal support award is “[t]he standard of living established during the marriaget.]” W.Va. … To equalize the equitable distribution, the family court ordered Husband to pay Wife $226,721.23; these funds will be transferred from Husband's Radiology Associates 40IK to Wife's Radiology Associates 40IK by qualified domestic

State Ex Rel. Porter v. Recht

211 W. Va. 396 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2002

overlooked by the State in its reliance on perjury-based cases as authority for its position is the long-established demarcation in the law with regard to perjury and false swearing cases. … United States, 77 F.2d 577, 581 (8th Cir.1935) (recognizing that “[t]he commission of perjury as to one matter does not absolve the witness or afford him immunity as to all other matters covered by his testimony at the same

Ritz v. City of Wheeling

43 L.R.A. 148 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1898

When the evidence is so clearly deficient as to give no support to a verdict for plaintiff, .if rendered, the evidence should be excluded from the jury. Klinkler v. Iron Co., 43 W. Va., 219 , ( 27 S. … If so, what structure or establishment might not?

City of Charleston v. Littlepage

73 W. Va. 156 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1913

Suing as residents, citizens, qualified voters, householders and freeholders, the plaintiffs charged in their bill intent and purpose on the part of the council of the city to create an unconstitutional debt by the passage … Nothing in the view of the.court establishes it. Hence it is not a fact within the knowledge of the court. - If it is permitted to act under such circumstances, it clearly acts without jurisdiction.

West Virginia Department of Corrections v. Lemasters

173 W. Va. 159 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1984

As one method of attracting such qualified individuals, the system assures through W.Va.Code 29-6-10(11) [1977] and 29-6-15 [1977] that employees who have completed their probationary period may be dismissed only for “good … It is well established law in this state that “good cause” requires the state employer to demonstrate more than a technical violation of a statute or regulation.

Bell's Admr. v. Humphrey

8 W. Va. 1 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1874

A clearly expressed intention in one portion of the will is not to yield to a doubtful construction in any other portion of the instrument. Fifth. … and undertake to act” to the one so qualifying and undertaking to act.

Central Trust Co. v. Hearne

78 W. Va. 6 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1916

circuit court of Ohio county October 8, 1914, the Central Trust Company of Illinois averred its corporate existence and authority to act as guardian of estates of infants resident in that state; that it had been appointed and qualified … Although *10 the statute which it'purports to verify and establish as evidence shows the legality of plaintiff’s appointment as guardian of the estate of Robert G.

Ilosky v. Michelin Tire Corp.

172 W. Va. 435 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1983

As the appellee points out, the jury clearly considered the criteria listed in Momingstar and concluded that Michelin’s efforts to warn did not meet the legal standard. … The testimony at trial clearly was credible, and the jury was entitled to find for the appellee on the question of causation.

Robert W. Johnson, Jr. v. David Ballard, Warden

West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2014

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 de novo review.” Syl. … forensic psychiatrists, or a qualified forensic psychiatrist and a qualified forensic psychologist . . . .

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.

Louk v. Cormier

218 W. Va. 81 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Aug 8, 2005

This statute provided, in relevant part, that “expert testimony may only be admitted in evidence if the foundation, therefor, is first laid establishing that: ... … Va.Code § 55-7B-6d clearly states that trial courts shall instruct juries that they may return a non-unanimous verdict.

In Re: K.J., E.J. and E.A.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 15, 2015

These findings shall not be set aside by a reviewing court unless clearly erroneous. … Vaught’s credentials to qualify him as an expert.

Wayne Gas Co. v. Southern W. Va. Oil & Gas Corp.

148 W. Va. 685 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1964

Krebs, a qualified petroleum and gas engineer, who had been employed by Lynn to make a study of its properties and the situation existing as regards plaintiff. Mr. … E. 2d 462 : “A decree based on .conflicting evidence will be reversed when it appears that it is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence or is clearly wrong.”

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.

In Re the Proposed Annexation to the City of Morgantown

159 W. Va. 788 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1976

The evidence established that a notice of the hearing had been properly published and other statutory requirements had been met. … Clearly, statutory standards are prescribed. The commission, like the numerous administrative bodies which populate government, must apply the law to the facts.

Skaggs v. Elk Run Coal Co., Inc.

198 W. Va. 51 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1996

Such post hoe rationalization is clearly inconsistent with our precedents and the reasoning above. … In the context of this case, to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, the plaintiff must show that he is a disabled person within the meaning of the law, that he is qualified to perform the essential

State ex rel. Kincaide v. Canvassing Board

85 W. Va. 440 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1920

The respondents deny the right of this court to award such writs to enforce the performance of such duties, because they say the method adopted is without legal sanction, circumvents the policy the legislature intended to establish … The legislature has clearly manifested its intention in this regard by enacting section 34 of chapter 3 of the Code, which reads: “If the voter desires to vote for any person whose name does not appear on the ticket (ballot

Drummond v. Cook Motor Lines

136 W. Va. 293 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1951

On the other hand, it is established law in this State, as held in Thomas v. Lupis, 87 W. Va. 772 , 106 S. … There is nothing in this case to indicate clearly upon what basis the jury returned its verdict.