Case law

J.C., a Minor v. Pfizer, Inc, Roerig, a Division of Pfizer Inc.

814 S.E.2d 234 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 15, 2018

Category X is the lowest category, used when use of the drug is not recommended for any pregnant women, as the risks clearly outweigh any benefits. … Urato was an extremely well qualified and important liability witness for Plaintiffs.

Venable v. Gulf Taxi Line

105 W. Va. 156 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1928

said injury is in its nature permanent, how far the same was calculated to disable him after he became twenty-one years of age from engaging in those pursuits of employments which in the absence of his injury he might have qualified … Va. 193 , and had the passing approval of the court, but while it may have substantially stated *165 tbe law applicable to tbat case, the modification of the defendant’s instruction in this case, we think, more clearly defined

Broadnax v. United States

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 5, 2024

Defendants clearly argue dismissal under the former and, while not specifically stated, appear to also argue for dismissal under the latter.”). … However, plaintiffs cannot rely on general directives established by those sources to avoid the discretionary function exception.

State ex rel. McMannis v. Mohn

163 W. Va. 129 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 1, 1979

While is it necessary to establish a factual basis to prove the recidivist charge, these facts do not bear upon the defendant’s guilt of a substantive offense. In Syllabus Point 1 of Conner v. Griffith, W. … Va., 238 S.E.2d 529 (1977), we defined the content of our Double Jeopardy Clause as follows: “The Double Jeopardy Clause in Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution, provides immunity from further prosecution

State ex rel. Games-Neely v. Sanders

220 W. Va. 230 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 17, 2006

Va.Code §§ 5-1-9(f) and 5-1-9(h) clearly establish the maximum allowable time a defendant may be held on a fugitive warrant and leave no room for enlargement. For example, W. … However, CPL 570.36 and CPL 570.40 do not immunize the accused from extradition . . . ." (citations omitted)); Carter v.

Jeffers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

84 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Feb 23, 2000

Therefore, “[ujnder Rule 12, judgment will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” … [Defendant’s] construction of [the provision] would therefore have the perverse effect of granting complete immunity from design defect liability to an entire industry that, in the judgment of Congress, needed more stringent

Bank of Williamson v. McDowell County Bank

66 W. Va. 545 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1909

The law thus accords to them a protection and right which citizens generally do not have, immunity from the Return of money paid to them under a mutual mistake. … Therefore, the endorsement of a purchasing bank, not qualified or limited in any respect, amounts to a representation to the drawee that this precaution has been taken.

Gaylord v. Hope Natural Gas Co.

122 W. Va. 205 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1940

Maxwell' qualified as administrators of his estate. … We cannot say that the commissioner was clearly wrong, and under well established rules, we do not feel that we should disturb his finding as to values.

McGraw v. St. Joseph's Hospital

200 W. Va. 114 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1997

Henthorn, who clearly testified that defendant violated the standard of care it owed to plaintiff as a result of plaintiff's May 12 fall. Dr. … Therefore, the circuit court was clearly wrong in ruling *398 that the plaintiff did not have an expert on the standard of care, with respect to the May 12 incident.

Perrine v. EI DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO.

225 W. Va. 482 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 2, 2010

The analysis to be applied in determining whether an expert is qualified to give an opinion has been well established by this Court. … Bedell, et al., no. 070762, this Court, on March 15, 2007, refused DuPont's petition to prohibit the disclosure of documents said to be the subject of qualified immunity and privilege. In addition, in State ex rel. E.I.

Beine v. Bd. of Educ. of Cabell County

181 W. Va. 669 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1989

The Board’s failure to follow the procedures established by law in pursuing termination and their failure to afford Beine his statutory right to notice and hearing left the lower court little choice in its decision. … John Bosco is a Missouri not-for-profit corporation and not qualified to do business in the State of West Virginia. 7.

State v. Prater

52 W. Va. 132 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1902

That fixes the degree of the tendency and clearly overcomes the objection. … clearly. shown.

William F. Crawford v. W. Va. Dept. of Corrections - Work Release

239 W. Va. 374 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 8, 2017

Crawford qualified as an “employee” pursuant to W. Va. Code § 23-2-1a (1999) (Repl. Vol. 2010). However, this question is rendered moot by our determination that Mr. … Clearly both classes of inmates receive treatment for work-related injuries.

Wellman v. Norjigtov

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Nov 26, 2018

any steps to qualify Hasan Norjigitov to obtain or hold a valid commercial driver’s license. … In contrast to fact work product, opinion work product enjoys almost absolute immunity from discovery.

Calhoun County Bank v. Ellison

133 W. Va. 9 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1949

The evidence introduced by her is clearly insufficient to prove either claim, in whole or in part. … This evidence is utterly insufficient to establish the claim and the action of the circuit court in disallowing it was clearly right.

State v. Anderson

178 W. Va. 348 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1987

Accordingly, the record fails, in this Court’s opinion, to establish that the hearing body was not neutral and detached. … An examination of the circumstances of the case shows that the defendant was clearly informed of what actions constituted various categories of violations.

State of West Virginia ex rel. Historic Arms Corporation v. The Honorable C. Carter Williams, Judge of the Circuit Court of Hardy County, Darrick J. Gust, and Emily Gust

West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 26, 2022

The court further found that Historic Arms had placed the Fuses in the stream of commerce, so that it had established minimum contacts with West Virginia by distributing them to Mr. … But the circuit court qualified those findings and expressly recognized that “Defendant Starer may have been wearing more than one hat during the time in question.

State v. Jarrell

191 W. Va. 1 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1994

(Emphasis added.) *5 The only thing this testimony established about the appellant, Barbara Jarrell’s husband, was that he was present at the Smith residence early on the night in question. … Smith’s statements to the police quite clearly were not made “during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.”

Kizer v. Harper

211 W. Va. 47 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 30, 2001

This statement is clearly in accord with the law of prima facie negligence as announced on multiple occasions by this Court. … Vance should not have been read to the jury, arguing that he did not qualify as an unavailable witness. Mr.

State v. Cremeans

62 W. Va. 134 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1907

In the second instruction, however, the word “personal” is used in *137 qualifying’ “doubt” when the word “reasonable” was evidently intended. … all his life as well as with his standing in the neighborhood in' which he lived and was necessarily qualified to know his general reputation, and he knew more from not having heard it discussed than from what he had heard