Case law

Heck v. Heck

171 W. Va. 527 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1982

McCoy, 167 W.Va. 59 , 278 S.E.2d 357 (1981) was “clearly wrong”, and declined to follow it. … It remains only for us to apply the law established in Garska to the facts of this case.

Hall v. Nello Teer Company

157 W. Va. 582 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1974

The defendant contends that Waller should have been allowed to tell the jury why, in his opinion, the rock fell, because Waller was qualified to give his opinion. … be disturbed unless it clearly appears that its discretion has been abused.”

Canterbury v. West Virginia Human Rights Commission

181 W. Va. 285 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1989

Evidence was admitted before the Hearing Examiner establishing this agency/employee relationship. … [that] findings of fact ... may not be reversed by a circuit court upon review, unless such finding is clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.” State ex rel.

Ruby v. Insurance Com'n of West Virginia

197 W. Va. 27 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1996

for the position or opening; (3) that he or she was rejected despite his or her qualifications; and (4) that after the rejection the respondent continued to accept the applications of similarly qualified persons. … This is the most damaging evidence against the Insurance Commission because it establishes a retaliatory motive. In addition, Ms. Ruby was dismissed shortly after Mr.

Morris v. Heartwood Forestland Fund Ltd. Partnership

228 W. Va. 142 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 18, 2010

Factual and Procedural Background Appellees are North Carolina limited partnerships 2 that have invested in wooded lands in West Virginia. 3 They are qualified to do business in West Virginia where their operations are limited … “It is well established that the word ‘shall,’ in the absence of language in the statute showing a contrary intent on the part of the Legislature, should be afforded a mandatory connotation.” Syl. Pt. 1, Nelson v.

Cough v. Eastham

27 W. Va. 796 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1886

Reel, 1 Hawks 248 , clearly does not approve such a doctrine. It was one of the authorities relied on in Dinges v. Branson , 14 W. … After permitting his will to remain for nearly sixteen months he executed his codicil, in which he shows clearly, that he did not make any mistake in the execution of the will.

State ex rel. K. W. v. Werner

161 W. Va. 192 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1978

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor … We accept the opinions as being given by qualified persons. W.Va.

Vance v. Ritchie

178 W. Va. 155 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1987

This section shall apply only to such proceedings as are not prohibited by the constitutional immunity of the State from suit under section 35, article VI of the Constitution of the State. *157 The Commissioner of Highways … In Phares , this Court implicitly acknowledged that a case such as the One before us, where the appellee seeks compensation for land damaged by the State, is clearly within the contemplation of W.Va.Code, 14-2-2(b), as amended

Jones v. West Virginia State Board of Education

218 W. Va. 52 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Aug 8, 2005

At the same time, the circuit court established a briefing schedule and set the matter for a final hearing on February 13, 2003. … Clearly, this statute pertains to providing educational resources to the person or persons providing instruction, who, in this case, was Mrs. Jones.

Webb v. City of Williamson

107 W. Va. 375 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 14, 1929

These officers qualified by taking oath and giving bond, but the then incumbents of the positions, claiming that they had not been lawfully removed therefrom, continued to carry out their .respective *377 duties. … He must in such ease first establish the right to the office by a quo warranto proceeding.

State v. Parsons

90 W. Va. 307 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1922

But instruction A does not follow- the language of the supposed qualifying instruction in Thompson’s Case, which required the Commonwealth to “prove everything essential to the establishment of the charge in the indictment … Whether he was preparing to go home when he noticed molestation of his car was clearly immaterial, wherefore it was not a proper subject of cross-examination.

Richlands Brick Corp. v. Hurst Hardware Co.

80 W. Va. 476 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 8, 1917

Clearly, at the time of the .delivery of the property to defendant, neither Norris nor Goodman had any title. … The clause qualifying the application of the *481 doctrine stated is significant.

Ritz v. Kingdon

139 W. Va. 189 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1953

Ritz was mentally competent to make a will at the time he executed the instrument dated July 10, 1950, is also clearly established by the evidence. … As his mental capacity to make a will at the time he executed the instrument dated July 10, 1950, is clearly established he had the right freely to dispose of his property in any way he wished to dispose of it regardless

State Ex Rel. Dillon v. Egnor

188 W. Va. 221 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1992

We note, however, that W.Va.Code, 48A-4-4(c), clearly permits the submission to the circuit court of a “separate document containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law[.]” 9 III. … There has been no showing that she has legal training which would qualify her to prepare a draft order.

State Ex Rel. Summerfield v. Maxwell

148 W. Va. 535 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1964

require such person or officer to “omit” placing such candidate upon the ballot or direct the election official to remove the. name of such candidate from the ballot even though, after full hearing before this Court, it clearly … However, that question gives this Court no difficulty and certainly under the principle laid down in the Zickefoose case and the other cases to which reference has heretofore been made there is no reason for establishing

Application of Dailey

195 W. Va. 330 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1995

Once an applicant demonstrates that the eight qualifiers are satisfied, the circuit court has no choice but to grant the permit. … This analysis of W.Va.Code 61-7-4(b) (1995) clearly demonstrates that as an applicant satisfies all eight qualifiers described in W.Va.Code 61-7-4(a) (1995), the circuit court has no alternative than to grant the license.

War Memorial Hospital v. The West Virginia Health Care Authority

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 27, 2023

[t]he acquisition by a qualified hospital which is party to an approved cooperative agreement as provided in section twenty-eight, article twenty-nine-b, chapter sixteen of this code, of a hospital located within a distance … of twenty highway miles of the main campus of the qualified hospital[.]”

Thompson v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.

116 W. Va. 705 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1935

in lieu thereof; and, in addition thereto, he shall possess and may exercise all the powers and authority, and shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities, within such counties, as are now or hereafter … No verdict in any ease will be permitted to stand which is clearly against the weight of the evidence. Let us appraise the situation.

War Memorial Hospital v. The West Virginia Health Care Authority

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 27, 2023

[t]he acquisition by a qualified hospital which is party to an approved cooperative agreement as provided in section twenty-eight, article twenty-nine-b, chapter sixteen of this code, of a hospital located within a distance … of twenty highway miles of the main campus of the qualified hospital[.]”

Sally-Mike Properties v. Yokum

179 W. Va. 48 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1986

The trial court’s finding that this action was brought in good faith is not clearly erroneous. … This contention is clearly without merit. W. Va. Code, 37-13-1 [1963] authorizes the action when the plaintiff has “title or color of title of public record.”