Case law

State Ex Rel. Pinson v. Maynard

181 W. Va. 662 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1989

prejudice in order, the court in Lawson concluding [wjhile the defendants are entitled to the remedy of dismissal for violation of their constitutionally protected rights, they are not entitled to the reward of permanent immunity … "In balancing [the opposing interests] in cases of alleged prosecutorial over reaching during grand jury proceedings, the federal courts have clearly established the principle ‘that the dismissal of an indictment on the basis

Gibson v. Bower

73 S.E.2d 817 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1953

In the absence of such action, legally qualified voters would have been deprived of their right of suffrage. All the authorities we have examined disapprove such a result. … The pleadings available to a defendant in mandamus are clearly set forth in Chapter 26, Article 1, Section 6, Acts of the Legislature, Regular Session, 1933.

State Ex Rel. Gainer v. W. VA. BD. OF INVEST.

459 S.E.2d 531 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 31, 1995

The framers of the Constitution of 1902 added this qualifying phrase. … Clearly its effect is to modify the preceding unqualified prohibition. Now the prohibition is not absolute but definitely qualified.

Roy F. Hillberry, II v. Donald Ames, Superintendent, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex

West Virginia Supreme Court · Sep 19, 2022

Va. 580, 797 S.E.2d 557 (2017) (“A witness must be qualified as an expert under Rule 702 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence in order to present evidence of cell phone historical cell site data.”). … Consequently, at a minimum, he failed to establish the prejudice prong necessary to succeed on his ineffective assistance claim.

State v. Cowley

223 W. Va. 183 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 14, 2008

W.Va.Code, 56-6-12 [1923] provides: Either party in any action or suit may, and the court shall on motion of such party, examine on oath any person who is called as a juror therein, to know whether he is a qualified juror … The specific and precise purpose for which the evidence is offered must clearly be shown from the record and that purpose alone must be told to the jury in the trial court’s instruction.

Craig Blair, President of the West Virginia Senate, Roger Hanshaw, Speaker of the West Virginia House of Delegates, and James C. Justice, II, Governor of the State of West Virginia v. Sam Brunett and Robert McCloud<

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 8, 2023

However, we recognize an exception to this general rule ‘when the defense is in the nature of an immunity.’”). … The Fourth Circuit concluded that these actions were not sufficient to establish standing. Id. at 901.

Shipley v. Virginian Ry. Co.

87 W. Va. 139 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1920

In each of these cases, there was a practical denial of a clearly established right to a substantial recovery. … The verdicts were clearly contrary to the law and the evidence.

Mag. Robert E. Lowe II v. Shannon Smith

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 11, 2016

According to respondent, he qualified for an appointed attorney at both the September and November hearings. … Three other continuances, however, are clearly attributable to the State.4 All crimes, including domestic batteries, are serious matters that must be diligently prosecuted by the State.

McCoy v. VanKirk

201 W. Va. 718 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1997

for establishing fair market value.” 192 W.Va. at 702 , 453 S.E.2d at 685 . … In order to qualify for preferential treatment, the surviving spouse or descendant need not be a beneficiary of the individual.

Dent v. Fruth

192 W. Va. 506 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1994

She filed a civil action against her employer, the Appel-lees, alleging that she was wrongfully discharged from her job in violation of an implied contract established by the employee handbook she received from the Appellees … However, we have qualified that principle by stating that “[c]ontraetual provisions [in an employee handbook] relating to job security may alter the at will status of a particular employee.” Syl. Pt. 3, Cook v.

State v. Clay

135 W. Va. 618 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1951

Evidence was introduced in the case for the evident purpose of qualifying Exa Clay as a witness against her husband in the trial of the indictment. … We think the motive, on the part of the defendant, to burn this building and its contents, is clearly established.

Burcham v. City of Mullens

83 S.E.2d 505 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1954

City of Bluefield, 40 W.Va. 484 , 21 S.E. 752 ; and, as the record clearly establishes that plaintiff fell on the platform which is supported by a stringer, in which plaintiff's husband found a soft spot, and contains no … As this case was tried by a jury, consisting of twelve jurors, who were legally qualified, the trial court's exclusion of the veniremen Gary and Goode, even if they were qualified, does not constitute reversible error.

State Ex Rel. Palumbo v. Graley's Body Shop, Inc.

188 W. Va. 501 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1992

Thus, we find that the Antitrust Act is comprised of provisions which clearly show the legislature’s intention to establish a civil remedy for antitrust violations. … The Sixth Circuit further pointed out, however, that even if a witness establishes a reasonable fear of self-incrimination and prosecution, he or she may be compelled to testify if he or she is granted “use” immunity pursuant

Games-Neely Ex Rel. West Virginia State Police v. 1175 Sam Mason Road Loacated in Mill Creek District

211 W. Va. 236 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 3, 2002

Butler, 205 W.Va. 146, 150 , 516 S.E.2d 769, 773 (1999) (recognizing that Rule of Evidence 702, and not a statute, is the paramount authority for determining whether or not an expert is qualified to give an opinion). … Code § 60A-7-703(a) ], to the extent of an interest of an owner, by reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without his knowledge or consent.”

Griffin v. Coal Co.

59 W. Va. 480 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1905

B. 730, that the presumption is, in the absence of express words waiving or qualifying the right that the surface must be protected with the natural support which it possessed before the demise. … I am clearly of opinion that the courts hereinbefore referred to have wholly disregarded the well established rules of construction applied in construing all other contracts.

Smith v. Cartright

113 W. Va. 554 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1933

Emil, Robert and Mande Smith by the, clerk of the comity court of Braxton county in vacation on the 23rd day of April, 19.15, and on that day qualified and gave bond. … The decree of the circuit court of Braxton county had established the fact that they were entitled to interests in the land of which their father died seized and possessed. C. F.

Dryden v. Swinburn

15 W. Va. 234 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 10, 1879

This, it seems to me, is clearly a nonsequitur. … And it was thereby made clearly their duty, when a contested election case for such office was brought before them, to decide it.

Laura Randolph-Kennedy v. Verizon Services Corp.

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 1, 2015

Nevertheless, this information and [p]etitioner’s subjective feelings do not qualify as definitive objective facts involving fault on the part of the employer. … Therefore, we conclude that the Board did not clearly err in adopting and incorporating by reference the ALJ’s decision that petitioner was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because petitioner voluntarily

Wounaris v. West Virginia State College

214 W. Va. 241 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 29, 2003

We believe that the record in this *250 ease clearly establishes that Mr. Wounaris is a public employee protected by a grievance procedure. … Having said this, we are not holding that any employee who has filed a grievance or alleged a wrongful discharge is immune from termination.

State v. Mines

38 W. Va. 125 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1893

Though a later statute ,be not repugnant to a prior one in all respects, yet if it was clearly intended to take its place it re-jDeals it. Suth. St. Const. §§ 154-156. … It can not be doubted that under the title of the act-passed in 1868, establishing a code of laws, it was valid to insert the limitation section 20 in chapter 35. • The act of 1882 expresses in its title tluu it is to amend