Case law

Camico Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hess, Stewart & Campbell, P.L.L.C.

240 F. Supp. 3d 476 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 8, 2017

Upon review, the Court finds this language.- clear and unambiguous and, as in Bryan Brothers, a lack of prior knowledge is clearly a condition precedent to coverage. … In doing so, the Legislature gave the members of PLLCs certain immunity from personal liability, 5 but with the caveat that the PLLC shall carry at all times at least one million dollars of professional liability insurance

Deitz v. Insurance Co.

31 W. Va. 851 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1888

As to the admissibility of parol evidence to qualify the written contract, there is as much objection to letting it in for the purpose of enabling the principal not named in the contract itself to sue, as for the purpose … The facts alleged in the plaintiff’s special statement, if established by sufficient proof, would clearly show, that the mistake in the policy was the act of the defendant through its agent, and that the defendant can not

Samuel Anstey v. David Ballard, Warden

237 W. Va. 411 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 2, 2016

Jan-ney explained that the certificates of deposit were used to fund a trust that was established in December, 11 but the victim did not appear to understand. … However, even when courts recognize NFPA 921 as the standard for fire investigation, they often qualify that recognition. For example, in Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v.

Wolford v. Wolford

133 W. Va. 403 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1949

E. 504 , and the rule established therein is applied in Hewitt v. Hewitt, 120 W. Va. 151 , 197 S. E. 297 , and in Vickers v. Vickers, 95 W. Va. 323 , 122 S. E. 279 . … The Court should now, I believe, simply read out of the section in question the qualifying phrase “whether or not a divorce be prayed for.”

Peters v. Riley

73 W. Va. 785 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1914

The evidence may not have established such an employment, but it was sufficient, if believed, to give right of recovery on the common count for services rendered. … Though the plaintiff did not qualify as an expert witness, respecting real estate transactions, he ivas competent to speak on that subject. Be had performed the service, for which the charge was made.

State Ex Rel. Citifinancial, Inc. v. Madden

223 W. Va. 229 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 10, 2008

Emphasizing that the CCPA was enacted to protect consumers from creditors rather than the converse, Respondent Lightner challenges the contention of CitiFinancial that creditors who charge approved insurance rates are immune … We reject this argument without discussion as the cause of action authorized under the Act is clearly against the creditor as the entity who charges the excessive rates rather than against the insurer.

In re P.F.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 14, 2020

However, counsel asserted during oral argument that Grandmother could potentially qualify as a “preadoptive parent” and thus be entitled to a “meaningful opportunity to be heard.” … its entirety establishes that such placement is not in the best interests of the child.”

Bilchak v. STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COM'R

153 W. Va. 288 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1969

This principle is clearly stated in the syllabus of the case of Buckland v. … However, this principle does not relieve the claimants of the burden of establishing their claims, and the liberality rule cannot be considered as taking the place of proper and satisfactory proof. Hayes v.

In re: H.B., L.M., K.C. and L.C.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 4, 2020

These findings shall not be set aside by a reviewing court unless clearly erroneous. … As such, petitioner cannot establish error.

Jaymason M. Robinson v. Russell Maston, Superintendent

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 14, 2019

While it is true, as the habeas court found, that the strategy at issue involved risks, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that no reasonably qualified defense attorney would have presented the defense theory in this way … Based on the foregoing, petitioner cannot establish ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to subpoena a witness whose testimony was clearly duplicative of testimony from at least two other witnesses.

State v. White

228 W. Va. 530 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Aug 18, 2011

She merely qualified this answer by pointing out that she had not yet heard the psychological evidence that would be presented in this case, and, therefore, she could not express an opinion as to how she would perceive that … Factual determinations upon which these legal conclusions are based are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.

Woodrum v. Johnson

210 W. Va. 762 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 12, 2001

Id. at 382, 109 S.E.2d at 669 . 12 This Court has also repeatedly cautioned against establishing precedent based upon dicta. … The distinction between indemnity and contribution was clearly explained in Rio Grande Gas Co. v.

Barber v. F. & M. Insurance Co. of Wheeling

16 W. Va. 658 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 1, 1880

Pl. (14 Am. ed.) 479 and 1 Saunders 283, instead of antagonizing this nule, come, I think, clearly within the principle. … Hence it should now be held as the established practice that such matter being in defeasance or bar of the action, should be presented by plea and not by demurrer.

Triangle Improvement Council v. Ritchie

314 F. Supp. 20 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 2, 1969

There is nothing in the federal statutes which indicates that Congress intended to immunize the Bureau of Public Roads from judicial scrutiny of its acts. … When the construction of an administrative regulation rather than a statute is in issue, deference is even more clearly in order.

Black v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

220 W. Va. 623 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Aug 8, 2007

Of even more concern, I fear that the Majority's opinion in this matter may be viewed in the future as establishing a standard in West Virginia that a juror who states *619 he or she will rely upon the facts and the law to … The whole point of O'Dell was to prevent judges and attorneys from rehabilitating prospective jurors who clearly have ingrained prejudices and biases.

American Federation of State v. Civil Service Commission of West Virginia

181 W. Va. 8 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1989

It was clearly the intention of the Legislature to vest exclusively in the CSC the responsibility to classify state employees and to ensure pay equity within the same class. … As will be discussed in Part II-A, infra, other filing requirements were established for pending cases. .

Kline v. McCloud

174 W. Va. 369 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1985

We believe that the price paid for a parcel of land in a recent arm’s length transaction is an indicator of market value on a par with the testimony of a qualified appraiser. II. … X, § lb. 20 This provision clearly permits consideration of the issues in this case and the circuit court erred in holding otherwise.

State v. Williams

181 W. Va. 150 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 17, 1989

Clearly, the state presented a strong circumstantial case against appellant and, even without the courtroom identification by Mrs. Preston, appellant may well have been convicted. Had Mrs. … Preston’s courtroom identification been a qualified one, such as “I believe it was appellant but I am not positive,” we might have found that its admission was harmless error. See United States v. Wade, supra.

Corliss v. Jefferson County Board of Zoning Appeals

214 W. Va. 535 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 10, 2003

It is axiomatic that “[ijnterpretations of statutes by bodies charged with their administration are given great weight unless clearly erroneous.” Syl. Pt. 4, Security Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. First W. Va. … As justification for its decision to alter the established method of land measurement, the lower court cited syllabus point five of Hodge v.

In Re: B.L.-1, E.L., J.L., and B.L.-2

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2017

These findings shall not be set aside by a reviewing court unless clearly erroneous. … When that three-month period ended, the circuit court found at the second dispositional hearing that petitioner did not qualify for RSAT; was discharged from the drug court program; was the subject a prior abuse and neglect