Case law

Blankenship v. United States

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Nov 18, 2020

Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits lay opinion testimony that is “rationally based on the witness’s perception, helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue, … Rule 702 permits a witness who has been qualified as an expert to offer opinion testimony under specified circumstances. Fed. R. Evid. 702.

Michael Fiorito v. Dr. Anderson

District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Sep 24, 2018

“[T]he mere fact that all Plaintiffs’ claims arise under the 15 same general law does not necessarily establish a common question of law or fact.” 16 Coughlin v. … The claims are not clearly deficient on their face6 and 7 transfer, rather than dismissal, would avoid any timeliness problem which requiring 8 Plaintiff to re-file the claims might create. 9

Silling v. Erwin

885 F. Supp. 881 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Apr 25, 1995

The Co-Executors qualified to serve on June 9, 1993. Erwin died on May 21, 1994 and this action is maintained against his widow, Edna Marie Litton Erwin, as executrix of his estate and the Bank. … However, the Plaintiff argues “[t]he general rule [that fraud, in general, is never presumed and when alleged it must be established by clear and distinct proof] is qualified and the burden is shifted where a fiduciary relationship

Patrick v. Teays Valley Trustees, LLC

297 F.R.D. 248 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Dec 12, 2013

ConvaTec, Inc., 268 F.R.D. 226, 248 (M.D.N.C.2010) (“By appending the adjective “relevant” as a qualifier to their otherwise sweeping declaration of compliance with Defendants’ requests and by reiterating that they produced … To obtain a protective order, the party resisting discovery must establish that the information sought is covered by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e) and that it will be harmed by disclosure”).

State Ex Rel. Farley v. Kramer

153 W. Va. 159 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1969

The decision of the majority to the contrary disregards the statute and is clearly erroneous. … The foregoing facts are established beyond question and show clearly that the petitioner was not brought to trial until after three regular terms of court had elapsed after the return of the first indictment and in consequence

Pippins v. United States

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 12, 2022

If the movant is clearly unable to state a claim that entitles him to relief, the court may deny the motion without an evidentiary hearing. Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526, 529 (4th Cir. 1970). … Farrell noted in his affidavit, and as the record clearly reflects, he made significant efforts to challenge Thompson’s testimony, specifically regarding the gun. ECF No. 208 at 3-4.

Asbury v. Pocahontas Coal Company LLC

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 14, 2023

Despite being qualified for the positions for which she applied, each of the Defendants refused to hire her and, instead, hired male applicants. … “The doctrine of fraudulent misjoinder is relatively new and not clearly defined.” Id.

Ameriprise Financial, Inc. v. Charles E. Vallandingham (Judge White, dissenting)

Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Jun 12, 2025

Ameriprise reversed the transaction and fined Beck $847, but it failed to report Beck to FINRA even though the transaction clearly violated FINRA rules. … “To be sure, it is well established that a general, boilerplate disclaimer of a party’s representations cannot defeat a claim for fraud.” Dallas Aerospace, Inc. v.

Haymond v. Camden

22 W. Va. 180 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1883

derrogation of the common law as well as liable to be abused and used oppressively, it must be construed strictly and confined rigidly within the prescribed limits of the statute and not be allowed in cases which do not clearly … Ware, supra, so far as.they countenance or attempt to make any such distinction and qualify the doctrine announced and applied by the Supreme Court of the United States in Dean v. Nelson and Lasere v.

White v. Searls

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 31, 2023

As stated above, this court may not grant relief unless the state court adjudication resulted in a decision that “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined … Based on the foregoing, the magistrate judge found the state court decision “was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law; or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts

Keefer v. Ferrell

221 W. Va. 348 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2007

West Virginia's insurance statutes establish a list of things that must be included in every automobile insurance policy. … Under the Farm Family policy, an individual must be "using" or "occupying" a covered auto at the time of injury in order to qualify for uninsured motorist coverage.

State v. Stacy

181 W. Va. 736 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1989

As stated in Romine , "[i]t clearly follows that if the court's instructions are erroneous as to the law the jury's ultimate finding will likely be erroneous. … The defendant's highly qualified Ohio attorney never once argued that the State had failed to prove felony-murder.

Ortiz v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 1, 2019

Material facts are those necessary to establish the elements of a party’s cause of action. Anderson v. … If a transferee qualifies as an HDC, it is immune to “virtually all defenses.” See One Valley Bank v. Bolen, 425 S.E.2d 829, 831 (W. Va. 1992).

Mills v. Cabell County Board of Education

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 6, 2023

Furthermore, the CCBOE’s argument is unavailing that Plaintiff’s notes cannot qualify as work product because she is not an attorney. … Clearly, that estimate does not accurately reflect the cost of properly responding to this discovery request.

Banker v. Banker

196 W. Va. 535 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 17, 1996

The Legislature established in W.Va.Code, 48-2-16(b) (1984), sixteen factors which must be considered “in determining the amount of alimony.” … recommendation, findings and conclusions of a master found to be: "(1) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in conformance with the law; "(2) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity

Jackson v. Elswick

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 18, 2022

Jackson endured from their misuse of power, despite their opinion that they are afforded immunity, because they were acting agents of the state. ECF No. 104. … This objection is an assertion of how Plaintiff views the matter and a reiteration of his position that Defendants are not entitled to judicial immunity. See ECF No. 95 at 2.

Johnson v. West Virginia University Board of Governors

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 19, 2025

Lefkowitz clearly testified that Defendants met the standard of care during all of Plaintiff’s treatment. (ECF No. 251-3 at 132:17-25.) Subsequently, Dr. … In Phoenix, the Fourth Circuit held that “[t]here is no per se rule that expert testimony is necessary to establish an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim.

United States v. Shrader

737 F. Supp. 2d 589 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 16, 2010

Defendant takes issue with the United States’ assertion that Section 2261A(2) should be read to allow a unit of prosecution for each person who qualifies as a victim of the proscribed conduct. … The undersigned finds the Supreme Court’s decision in Ladner helpful as it establishes the analytical framework for deciding this matter but not dispositive as it concerned a completely different statute with a completely

State Ex Rel. Koontz v. Smith

134 W. Va. 876 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1950

of County Commissioner of the County of Wayne, State of West Virginia for the term of six years beginning on January 1, 1939, and ending on January 1, 1945, and until his successor shall be duly elected or appointed and qualified … I agree with the proposition of law stated in Point 3 of the syllabus, and with the final conclusion of the majority, but believe that the declaration alleges facts which clearly establish that the sums sued for were received

State Ex Rel. Meadows v. Hechler

195 W. Va. 11 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1995

In our case, the Legislature delegated a broad responsibility to the Executive branch for the purpose of establishing standards and enforcement mechanisms concerning personal care homes. … twenty-four hours, to four or more persons who are dependent upon the services of others by reason of physical or mental impairment who may require limited and intermittent nursing care, including those individuals who qualify