Case law

Adkins v. Leverette

164 W. Va. 377 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1980

It has been established that the continuances of the trial on indictment No. 1707 were granted upon the motion of the then defendant. It also appears that the jury impaneled to hear that case was discharged. … Here it clearly appears that the defendant, believing that the delay was beneficial, requested and was granted several continuances. By his actions he, at least impliedly, consented to the discharge of the jury.

State Ex Rel. Billings v. City of Point Pleasant

194 W. Va. 301 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 18, 1995

It is well established that "[t]he rémedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations.” Kerr v. … Clearly, the first two prerequisites justifying the issuance of a writ of mandamus (discussed infra) are applicable to all mandamus actions. 2 .

State v. Noe

160 W. Va. 10 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1976

The pathologist had been qualified as an expert medical witness and had been accepted by the court as such. … After cross-examination which clearly established that such an opinion was not his medical opinion, and was not based on medical factors, defense counsel moved to *17 strike the doctor’s testimony with reference to sexual

Brittany Foster v. Primecare Medical of West Virginia, Inc.

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 27, 2025

Questions of law are reviewed de novo, while findings of fact made by the Board of Review are accorded deference unless the reviewing court believes the findings to be clearly wrong.” Syl. Pt. 3, Duff v. … course of and resulting from covered employment, such claim for workers’ compensation benefits shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for such injury, disease, or death and the immunity

Richard Parsons v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

237 W. Va. 138 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 11, 2016

Clearly, this new point of law runs afoul of the majority of other jurisdictions that either require a showing of prejudice, or at least consider it a significant faútor in determining whether a party has waived the right … Marple, 236 W.Va. 654 , 783 S.E.2d 75 (2015) (emphasis added) (citations omitted) ("The defense of qualified immunity 'is not waived if the defendant "raised the issue at a pragmatically sufficient time, and [the plaintiff

Walker v. Doe

210 W. Va. 490 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 11, 2002

Only those statements included in a per curiam opinion that are not necessary to the decision reached in the case or those that are clearly beyond the legal points that are being resolved in an opinion qualify as “obiter … The value of per curiam opinions is well-established.

Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources

232 W. Va. 388 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 21, 2013

By enacting a statutory scheme that allows the states to establish rates in accordance with federal laws and regulation, the federal government has clearly manifested its intention that Medicaid reimbursement rates are … The Massachusetts court also found that the Massachusetts legislature did not intend to waive sovereign immunity in a Medicaid reimbursement challenge.

Glen Falls Insurance v. Smith

217 W. Va. 213 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 1, 2005

qualified as an insured under Leneice Combs' insurance policy. … Instead, he contends that he qualifies as a "ward" or "foster child" under the policy definition.

Pickens v. Coal River Boom Co.

66 W. Va. 10 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 4, 1909

Does that charter give immunity from action by Pickens? We think that former decisions of this Court upon the same and similar facts answer this question in the affirmative The two decisions just cited do so. … To this extent.only does the charter qualify the work as a private nuisance. The thing is still a private nuisance as to the individual.

State of West Virginia ex rel., State of West Virginia v. The Honorable Paul W. Gwaltney, Jr., Judge of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, and William J. McGough

West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 28, 2024

Respondent McGough conceded that his Ohio qualifying offense falls within the eight categories of offenses contained in West Virginia Code § 15-12-2(b). … This ruling clearly violated our prior caselaw, including syllabus point three of Gwaltney, and impermissibly invaded the grand jury’s province.

Paula L. Cunningham v. Felman Production, LLC

West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 17, 2014

Instead, petitioner must establish that respondent “actually possessed such knowledge.” Id. … appeal to this Court that she established “actual knowledge” by virtue of our holding in Ryan v.

State v. Koon

190 W. Va. 632 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1993

This evidence thus established all elements required for a conviction of third degree assault under W.Va.Gode 61-8B-5 [1984]. Mrs. … Fremouw was qualified to render an opinion on it. Once Dr.

COMMITTEE ON LEGAL ETHICS OF W. VA. BAR v. Pietranton

99 S.E.2d 15 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1957

His unreliability is clearly demonstrated by the numerous differences in his testimony, as given at different times, his biased attitude as a witness, and by his several attempts to obtain immunity from prosecution as to … 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.

Eastham v. City of Huntington

222 W. Va. 661 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 9, 2009

protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause, U.S. … Therefore, our law clearly recognizes the general validity of residency requirements.

Karen Adams v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency

237 W. Va. 312 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 3, 2016

Section 682.402(e)(3) plainly states as follows with regard to the steps required of a borrower to qualify for an “ability to benefit” discharge: Except as provided in paragraph (e)(15) of this section, to qualify for a discharge … It is well-established that evidence of a promissory note alone is sufficient to establish a prima facie obligation. See U.S. v. Irby, 517 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir. 1975).

Flesher v. Board of Review, West Virginia Department of Veterans' Affairs

138 W. Va. 765 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1953

Flesher, the unremarried widow of the deceased veteran, Harry Edward Flesher, has hot been established, and as the proof in this proceeding is not sufficient to render applicable the statutory presumption that she is dead … Because she is a nonresident of this State and was such nonresident at the time the application of the appellant for payment of the bonus was made she is not qualified to receive such bonus.

Spencer v. Steinbrecher

152 W. Va. 490 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1968

each avowed out of the presence of the jury that in their “opinion” it was worth about $350 or $300 without showing any experience to qualify them as evaluator. … The rule relating to punitive damages is clearly stated in point 3 of the syllabus in the case of Toler v. Cassinelli, supra, and followed in the Ennis v.

Murphy v. Eastern American Energy Corp.

224 W. Va. 95 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 23, 2009

The Appellant, however, did not qualify as a “dependent” under the statute, based upon the determination made by Workers’ Compensation. 4 Consequently, the Appellee asserted that there were no persons with the statutory right … Our precedents are not sacrosanct, for we have overruled prior decisions where the necessity and propriety of doing so has been established. See Patterson v.

State v. Kellison

56 W. Va. 690 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1904

Va. 771, 773 , and it clearly covers the objection raised here. The syllabus in State v. … They constitute a hypothetical statement of facts as to which there is evidence, leaving it to the jury to determine whether they are established.

State v. Currey

133 W. Va. 676 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1950

of law, the qualifying phrase in the instant instruction “in the absence of proof to the contrary” shows clearly that the trial court was speaking of a rebuttable presumption, that is, a presumption of fact. … The jury are therefore instructed that evidence of good character is a substantial fact, like any other fact tending to establish the innocence of the defendant, and if the jury believe that the evidence of good character