Case law

Barr v. NCB Management Services, Inc.

227 W. Va. 507 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 14, 2011

Where an act is clearly remedial in nature, we must construe the statute liberally so as to furnish and accomplish all the purposes intended. Kisamore v. … Va.Code § 46A-5-101(l) broadly and liberally to the certified question presented in this case, we find that a professional debt collector qualifies as a creditor.

State v. Brooks

214 W. Va. 562 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 8, 2003

McCoy began, the record clearly establishes that the appellant was the initial aggressor. Nonetheless, the appellant argues that she became the victim when Ms. McCoy used force to repel her attack. However, Ms. … As set forth above, the evidence clearly established that the appellant was the initial aggressor.

Cobb v. West Virginia Human Rights Commission

217 W. Va. 761 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 14, 2005

whether in class or out, whether it stems from the time, place, or type of behavior, which materially disrupts class work or involves the substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others, is not constitutionally immunized … If hearsay is sufficient to establish a fact, then all semblance of justice is lost. West Virginia law requires more. HRC proceedings are bound by the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. See W.

Charles E. v. David Ballard, Warden

West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 21, 2017

A social worker, who was qualified by the circuit court as an expert in the area of whether children exhibit characteristics of being abused, testified about an interview she conducted of the victim and testified that the … According to the record on appeal, petitioner’s own testimony establishes that his counsel met with him approximately twelve to fourteen times between the preliminary hearing and the jury trial.

Amie Miller v. St. Joseph Recovery Center, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company, St. Joseph's Operating Company, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company, and Siltstone Holdings, LLC. A Delaware Limited Liability Company

West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 26, 2022

Miller qualified for that package. The court also found that “‘severance pay,’ by its very nature, cannot be ‘earned’ by a plaintiff until after she is terminated. … These findings are clearly supported by the record.

County Commission of McDowell County v. McKesson Corp.

263 F. Supp. 3d 639 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 3, 2017

In order to establish fraudulent joinder in a particular case, a removing defendant must show either (1) there is no possibility that the plaintiff can establish a cause of action against the removing defendant, or (2) that … The notice must contain a “screening certificate of merit” executed under oath by a qualified expert. If this requirement is not met, the case must be dismissed. See Stanley v.

State ex rel. Bowser v. Hill

209 W. Va. 526 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 30, 2001

Berry clearly established his unwillingness to have the property allotted to the Bowsers. … Assuming, without deciding, that the Bowsers did not waive their right to allotment, they had only a qualified right, not an absolute right, to allotment.

R.S. Mutter, Warden v. Bobby Ross

811 S.E.2d 866 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 12, 2018

On this well-established rule, Packingham made no exception for parolees. Thus, we decline to accept the State’s argument that Mr. … In analyzing a statute, it is well-established that: “[w]e look first to the statute’s language. If the text, 39 Syl. Pt. 3, State ex rel.

Irvin v. Stover

67 W. Va. 356 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1910

If these words are to have any meaning at .all they clearly have this effect. … But there was no reason whatever for requiring this sisters’ heirs, and' the court adhered to the established rule, and gave to it its technical meaning.

Casey v. Hazelton USP

District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Oct 3, 2017

indicating that [the] correspondence qualifies as special mail. . .” … The Stotts Court relied upon the four-part test for determining constitutionality of prison regulations which was established in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).

Carl Carmichael v. Enerfab, Inc.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 20, 2015

Glenville State Coll., 189 W.Va. 546, 433 S.E.2d 49 (1993). 3 Petitioner asserts that he is a qualified person with a disability because he has a degenerative cervical disc disease and because he has carpal … The evidence in the record before this Court clearly establishes that all employees were asked to inform respondent if they used medication that “would impair [their] ability to work safely or would show up on a drug test

Stewart v. Stewart

209 W. Va. 550 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2001

We also cannot determine whether those partnership debts could be qualified as "frivolous," i.e., expenses incurred by the appellant solely as a tool to reduce the amount he would be required to pay the appellee. … The appellee is clearly entitled to her marital share of the appellant's partnership, and is entitled to alimony.

Alza Corp. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc.

388 F. Supp. 2d 717 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Sep 27, 2005

Accord *737 ingly, Mylan has not established that Aberg anticipates. 5. … Therefore, the Court concludes that the weight of the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art in 1995 would reasonably expect oxybutynin to absorb in the colon.

City of Philippi v. Weaver

208 W. Va. 346 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2000

Utilization of the July 14, 1999, order to establish the appellate time constraints would be a inappropriate. [2] III. … The rule in West Virginia is that parties must speak clearly in the circuit court[,] on pain that, if they forget their lines, they will likely be bound forever to hold their peace....

Kelly v. Painter

202 W. Va. 344 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1998

The exclusion in question is facially ambiguous in its intended application to the facts of record in this case because the exclusion is qualified by the requirement that it applies only to insureds in the business of, inter … We previously quoted the policy language which clearly states the insurance does not apply to bodily injury for which the insured may be liable if the insured caused or contributed to the intoxication of the person involved

State of West Virginia v. A.D.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 22, 2019

, factually qualified for a less than 15 grams under 401(c).” … The reporter’s notes to the model act indicate that individuals who qualify for consideration under Section 407 “are either casual drug users or experimenters[.]”

Lucas v. ICG Beckley, LLC

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Feb 23, 2018

(e) Where persons are transported into or out of a mine by a hoist, a qualified hoisting engineer shall be on duty while any person is underground. … Va. 2001) (finding that an employer was not immune under W. Va.

Luis B. v. Linda B.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 7, 2017

portion of his retirement account contribution, though his employer made the contribution ten months after the date of the parties’ separation, and though petitioner was required to be employed on the last day of the year to qualify … Code § 48–13–701 (“The guidelines in child support awards apply as a rebuttable presumption to all child support orders established or modified in West Virginia.”). Soulsby v.

State of West Virginia v. Donald Dunn

237 W. Va. 155 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 13, 2016

Dunn establish prejudice from the denial of his request for a continuance. See Bush, 163 W. … Joseph was charged, their testimony was relevant in establishing that Mr.

MacDonald v. City Hospital, Inc.

227 W. Va. 707 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 22, 2011

We reasoned “ ‘that if the legislature can, without violating separation of powers principles, establish statutes of limitation, establish statutes of repose, create presumptions, create new causes of action and abolish old … Code § 55 -7B-8(a). 21 It is well established that “factual findings made by the trial [court] are given great deference by this Court and will not be overturned unless they are clearly erroneous.”