minority rule in West Virginia

1998The minority rule was clearly articulated in Dunn v. National Security Fire & Casualty Co., 631 So.2d 1103 (Fla.App. 5 Dist.1993). [18] The trial court in Dunn denied the plaintiff access to the claim file of an insured during a third-party bad faith suit against the insured's insurer.

1998The minority rule was clearly articulated in Dunn v. National Security Fire & Casualty Co., 631 So.2d 1103 (Fla.App. 5 Dist.1993). 18 The trial court in Dunn denied the plaintiff access to the claim file of an insured during a third-party bad faith suit against the insured’s insurer.

2023First, although the inclusion of the words “injury, death or loss” in the statutory language seemingly provides support for the petitioner’s argument, our analysis is aligned with that of the New Mexico Supreme Court, which held in Regents of University of New Mexico v. Armijo, 704 P.2d 428 (N.M. 1985), that [i]n reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the minority exception in the statute applied to the infant’s cause of action and that this exception allowed the personal representative to file suit on the infant’s behalf any time prior to the date on which the child wou

2020Holstein v. Casey, 164 W.

2018The Court then concluded that only the minority rule set forth above was consistent with our Constitution: "In adopting the minority view, we do so with a practical realization that '[i]f police are allowed to search when they possess no lawful means and are only required to show that lawful means could have been available even though not pursued, the narrow "inevitable discovery" exception would "swallow" the [constitutional warrant] protection.' " Id . (quoting State v. Hatton , 389 N.W.2d 229 , 234 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) ).

1995Though we are mindful of the minority rule and the various reasons for which it has been adopted in some states, Hatcher v. Rose, 329 N.C. 626 , 407 S.E.2d 172 (1991); 12 Skyles, supra; Spillman v. Spillman, 509 So.2d 442 (La.Ct.App.1987), we, nevertheless, find the majority rule to be more compelling.

1995Though we are mindful of the minority rule and the various reasons for which it has been adopted in some states, Hatcher v. Rose, 329 N.C. 626 , 407 S.E.2d 172 (1991); 12 Skyles, supra; Spillman v. Spillman, 509 So.2d 442 (La.Ct.App.1987), we, nevertheless, find the majority rule to be more compelling.

1995Though we are mindful of the minority rule and the various reasons for which it has been adopted in some states, Hatcher v. Rose, 329 N.C. 626 , 407 S.E.2d 172 (1991); 12 Skyles, supra; Spillman v. Spillman, 509 So.2d 442 (La.Ct.App.1987), we, nevertheless, find the majority rule to be more compelling.

1991For collections of cases on that point, including the approximately ten jurisdictions which follow the minority rule of subjecting private hospital's medical staff initial appointment decisions to judicial review of the merits, see Barrows v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 123 Ill.2d 49 , 121 Ill.Dec. 244 , 525 N.E.2d 50 (1988) (following majority rule of nonreview); Hottentot v. Mid-Maine Medical Center, 549 A.2d 365 (Me.1988) (following majority rule of nonreview); annotation, Exclusion of or Discrimination Against Physician or Surgeon by Hospital, 37 A.L.R.3d 645 (1971 & Supp. 1990), espec

1991For collections of cases on that point, including the approximately ten jurisdictions which follow the minority rule of subjecting private hospital's medical staff initial appointment decisions to judicial review of the merits, see Barrows v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 123 Ill.2d 49 , 121 Ill.Dec. 244 , 525 N.E.2d 50 (1988) (following majority rule of nonreview); Hottentot v. Mid-Maine Medical Center, 549 A.2d 365 (Me.1988) (following majority rule of nonreview); annotation, Exclusion of or Discrimination Against Physician or Surgeon by Hospital, 37 A.L.R.3d 645 (1971 & Supp. 1990), espec

1991For collections of cases on that point, including the approximately ten jurisdictions which follow the minority rule of subjecting private hospital's medical staff initial appointment decisions to judicial review of the merits, see Barrows v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 123 Ill.2d 49 , 121 Ill.Dec. 244 , 525 N.E.2d 50 (1988) (following majority rule of nonreview); Hottentot v. Mid-Maine Medical Center, 549 A.2d 365 (Me.1988) (following majority rule of nonreview); annotation, Exclusion of or Discrimination Against Physician or Surgeon by Hospital, 37 A.L.R.3d 645 (1971 & Supp. 1990), espec

1989The minority rule, followed by some of the New England states, is that the measure of damages for a breach of general warranty is the value of the land at the time of eviction, including the value of any improvements made before the eviction. 24 W.Va. at 138-39 ; Powell, supra at 81A-148; Maupin, supra at 424-27.

1988In Johnson v. Hall, 283 Md. 644 , 392 A.2d 1103 (1978), the court expressly rejected the majority rule as “not soundly reasoned” and expressly followed the minority rule, which the court viewed as achieving “the correct result.” 283 Md. at 651 , 392 A.2d at 1108 .

1988In Johnson v. Hall, 283 Md. 644 , 392 A.2d 1103 (1978), the court expressly rejected the majority rule as “not soundly reasoned” and expressly followed the minority rule, which the court viewed as achieving “the correct result.” 283 Md. at 651 , 392 A.2d at 1108 .

1970Board of Auditors of Wayne County v. Benoit, 20 Mich. 176 ; Coughlin v. McElroy, 74 Conn. 397 , 50 A. 1025 ; 64 A.L.R.2d 1375 , 1378.

1970Board of Auditors of Wayne County v. Benoit, 20 Mich. 176 ; Coughlin v. McElroy, 74 Conn. 397 , 50 A. 1025 ; 64 A.L.R.2d 1375 , 1378.

1970Though by using a quotation from Ballaed on Real Property that a right of re-entry “descends to the grantor’s heirs,” Judge Brannon considered the right of re-entry to be inheritable, nevertheless, by following the minority rule of the cited New York cases, including Upington v. Corrigan, 151 N.Y. 143 , 45 N.E. 359 , 37 L.R.A. 794 , he reached the conclusion that the provision of our then statute Section 5, Chapter 71, Code, 1868, that “Any interest in or claim to real estate may be disposed of by deed or will,” did not apply to a right of re-entry “because it requires some estate or actual in

1970Though by using a quotation from Ballaed on Real Property that a right of re-entry “descends to the grantor’s heirs,” Judge Brannon considered the right of re-entry to be inheritable, nevertheless, by following the minority rule of the cited New York cases, including Upington v. Corrigan, 151 N.Y. 143 , 45 N.E. 359 , 37 L.R.A. 794 , he reached the conclusion that the provision of our then statute Section 5, Chapter 71, Code, 1868, that “Any interest in or claim to real estate may be disposed of by deed or will,” did not apply to a right of re-entry “because it requires some estate or actual in

1970Board of Auditors of Wayne County v. Benoit, 20 Mich. 176 ; Coughlin v. McElroy, 74 Conn. 397 , 50 A. 1025 ; 64 A.L.R.2d 1375 , 1378.

1970Some of the cases which support the minority rule are: Ward v. Marshall, 96 Cal. 155 , 30 P. 1113 ; Wilkinson County Board of Supervisors v. Jolliff (Miss.), 230 So. 2d 61 ; Ness v. City of Fargo, 64 N.D. 231 , 251 N.W. 843 ; Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County v. Litton (Okla.), 315 P.2d 239 , 64 A.L.R.2d 1365 ; La Belle v. Hazard, 91 R.I. 42 , 160 A.2d 723 ; Andrews v. City of Portland, 79 Me. 484 , 10 A. 458 , 10 Am.

1970Some of the cases which support the minority rule are: Ward v. Marshall, 96 Cal. 155 , 30 P. 1113 ; Wilkinson County Board of Supervisors v. Jolliff (Miss.), 230 So. 2d 61 ; Ness v. City of Fargo, 64 N.D. 231 , 251 N.W. 843 ; Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County v. Litton (Okla.), 315 P.2d 239 , 64 A.L.R.2d 1365 ; La Belle v. Hazard, 91 R.I. 42 , 160 A.2d 723 ; Andrews v. City of Portland, 79 Me. 484 , 10 A. 458 , 10 Am.

1970Some of the cases which support the minority rule are: Ward v. Marshall, 96 Cal. 155 , 30 P. 1113 ; Wilkinson County Board of Supervisors v. Jolliff (Miss.), 230 So. 2d 61 ; Ness v. City of Fargo, 64 N.D. 231 , 251 N.W. 843 ; Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County v. Litton (Okla.), 315 P.2d 239 , 64 A.L.R.2d 1365 ; La Belle v. Hazard, 91 R.I. 42 , 160 A.2d 723 ; Andrews v. City of Portland, 79 Me. 484 , 10 A. 458 , 10 Am.

1970Some of the cases which support the minority rule are: Ward v. Marshall, 96 Cal. 155 , 30 P. 1113 ; Wilkinson County Board of Supervisors v. Jolliff (Miss.), 230 So. 2d 61 ; Ness v. City of Fargo, 64 N.D. 231 , 251 N.W. 843 ; Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County v. Litton (Okla.), 315 P.2d 239 , 64 A.L.R.2d 1365 ; La Belle v. Hazard, 91 R.I. 42 , 160 A.2d 723 ; Andrews v. City of Portland, 79 Me. 484 , 10 A. 458 , 10 Am.

1970Some of the cases which support the minority rule are: Ward v. Marshall, 96 Cal. 155 , 30 P. 1113 ; Wilkinson County Board of Supervisors v. Jolliff (Miss.), 230 So. 2d 61 ; Ness v. City of Fargo, 64 N.D. 231 , 251 N.W. 843 ; Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County v. Litton (Okla.), 315 P.2d 239 , 64 A.L.R.2d 1365 ; La Belle v. Hazard, 91 R.I. 42 , 160 A.2d 723 ; Andrews v. City of Portland, 79 Me. 484 , 10 A. 458 , 10 Am.

1970Some of the cases which support the minority rule are: Ward v. Marshall, 96 Cal. 155 , 30 P. 1113 ; Wilkinson County Board of Supervisors v. Jolliff (Miss.), 230 So. 2d 61 ; Ness v. City of Fargo, 64 N.D. 231 , 251 N.W. 843 ; Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County v. Litton (Okla.), 315 P.2d 239 , 64 A.L.R.2d 1365 ; La Belle v. Hazard, 91 R.I. 42 , 160 A.2d 723 ; Andrews v. City of Portland, 79 Me. 484 , 10 A. 458 , 10 Am.

1970Some of the cases which support the minority rule are: Ward v. Marshall, 96 Cal. 155 , 30 P. 1113 ; Wilkinson County Board of Supervisors v. Jolliff (Miss.), 230 So. 2d 61 ; Ness v. City of Fargo, 64 N.D. 231 , 251 N.W. 843 ; Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County v. Litton (Okla.), 315 P.2d 239 , 64 A.L.R.2d 1365 ; La Belle v. Hazard, 91 R.I. 42 , 160 A.2d 723 ; Andrews v. City of Portland, 79 Me. 484 , 10 A. 458 , 10 Am.

1970Some of the cases which support the minority rule are: Ward v. Marshall, 96 Cal. 155 , 30 P. 1113 ; Wilkinson County Board of Supervisors v. Jolliff (Miss.), 230 So. 2d 61 ; Ness v. City of Fargo, 64 N.D. 231 , 251 N.W. 843 ; Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County v. Litton (Okla.), 315 P.2d 239 , 64 A.L.R.2d 1365 ; La Belle v. Hazard, 91 R.I. 42 , 160 A.2d 723 ; Andrews v. City of Portland, 79 Me. 484 , 10 A. 458 , 10 Am.

1970Some of the cases which support the minority rule are: Ward v. Marshall, 96 Cal. 155 , 30 P. 1113 ; Wilkinson County Board of Supervisors v. Jolliff (Miss.), 230 So. 2d 61 ; Ness v. City of Fargo, 64 N.D. 231 , 251 N.W. 843 ; Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County v. Litton (Okla.), 315 P.2d 239 , 64 A.L.R.2d 1365 ; La Belle v. Hazard, 91 R.I. 42 , 160 A.2d 723 ; Andrews v. City of Portland, 79 Me. 484 , 10 A. 458 , 10 Am.

1970Andrews v. City of Portland, supra; 55 A.L.R. 997 , 1004.” In Ness v. City of Fargo, 64 N.D. 231 , 251 N.W. 843 , the court adopted the minority rule and held in point 3 of the syllabus that “Where a city assessor is wrongfully dismissed from office, he may recover his salary from the city for the period of the wrongful ouster, notwithstanding the fact that the salary for such period was paid by the city to a de facto officer, unless he has waived his right to such salary or by his conduct has estopped himself from claiming it.” *614 In the recent case of Wilkinson County Board of Supervisors

1970Some of the cases which support the minority rule are: Ward v. Marshall, 96 Cal. 155 , 30 P. 1113 ; Wilkinson County Board of Supervisors v. Jolliff (Miss.), 230 So. 2d 61 ; Ness v. City of Fargo, 64 N.D. 231 , 251 N.W. 843 ; Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County v. Litton (Okla.), 315 P.2d 239 , 64 A.L.R.2d 1365 ; La Belle v. Hazard, 91 R.I. 42 , 160 A.2d 723 ; Andrews v. City of Portland, 79 Me. 484 , 10 A. 458 , 10 Am.

1970Some of the cases which support the minority rule are: Ward v. Marshall, 96 Cal. 155 , 30 P. 1113 ; Wilkinson County Board of Supervisors v. Jolliff (Miss.), 230 So. 2d 61 ; Ness v. City of Fargo, 64 N.D. 231 , 251 N.W. 843 ; Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County v. Litton (Okla.), 315 P.2d 239 , 64 A.L.R.2d 1365 ; La Belle v. Hazard, 91 R.I. 42 , 160 A.2d 723 ; Andrews v. City of Portland, 79 Me. 484 , 10 A. 458 , 10 Am.

1969(Cable v. Ellis, 120 Ill. 136 , 11 N.E. 188 .) We recently stated the equitable rule in Elder v. Clarke, 385 Ill. 335, 339 , 52 N.E.2d 778 , 780: `The rule is that where improvements of a permanent character are made in good faith by one in possession, believing himself to be a bona fide purchaser, or an owner for full value, and under circumstances justifying such a belief, and the expenditure is reasonable and of benefit to the estate, an allowance may be made in a court of equity, where title is found to be in another.' See also Gilbreath v. Dilday, 152 Ill. 207 , 38 N.E. 572 ; Lagger v. Mu

1969(Cable v. Ellis, 120 Ill. 136 , 11 N.E. 188 .) We recently stated the equitable rule in Elder v. Clarke, 385 Ill. 335, 339 , 52 N.E.2d 778 , 780: `The rule is that where improvements of a permanent character are made in good faith by one in possession, believing himself to be a bona fide purchaser, or an owner for full value, and under circumstances justifying such a belief, and the expenditure is reasonable and of benefit to the estate, an allowance may be made in a court of equity, where title is found to be in another.' See also Gilbreath v. Dilday, 152 Ill. 207 , 38 N.E. 572 ; Lagger v. Mu

1969Our attention is directed to what appellant contends to be the majority rule in 104 A. L.R. 580, as follows: "`In a bare majority of the jurisdictions of this country wherein the question has clearly received consideration, support has been given to the rule that, not even in equity can one who has made improvements on the land of another, believing himself to be the owner, recover therefor, as plaintiff, where the owner has been guilty of no fraud, or acquiescence with knowledge, or other inequitable conduct.' "Appellant also calls our attention to what he contends the same authority ( 104 A.

1969Our attention is directed to what appellant contends to be the majority rule in 104 A. L.R. 580, as follows: "`In a bare majority of the jurisdictions of this country wherein the question has clearly received consideration, support has been given to the rule that, not even in equity can one who has made improvements on the land of another, believing himself to be the owner, recover therefor, as plaintiff, where the owner has been guilty of no fraud, or acquiescence with knowledge, or other inequitable conduct.' "Appellant also calls our attention to what he contends the same authority ( 104 A.

1969(Cable v. Ellis, 120 Ill. 136 , 11 N. E. 188 .) We recently stated the equitable rule in Elder v. Clarke, 385 Ill. 335, 339 , 52 N. E.2d 778, 780 ; ‘The rule is that where improvements of a permanent character are made in good faith by one in possession, believing himself to be a bona fide purchaser, or an owner for full value, and under circumstances justifying such a belief, and the expenditure is reasonable and of benefit to the 'estate, an allowance may be made in a court of equity, where title is found to be in another.’ See also Gilbreath v. Dilday, 152 Ill. 207 , 38 N. E. 572 ; Lagger v

1969(Cable v. Ellis, 120 Ill. 136 , 11 N.E. 188 .) We recently stated the equitable rule in Elder v. Clarke, 385 Ill. 335, 339 , 52 N.E.2d 778 , 780: `The rule is that where improvements of a permanent character are made in good faith by one in possession, believing himself to be a bona fide purchaser, or an owner for full value, and under circumstances justifying such a belief, and the expenditure is reasonable and of benefit to the estate, an allowance may be made in a court of equity, where title is found to be in another.' See also Gilbreath v. Dilday, 152 Ill. 207 , 38 N.E. 572 ; Lagger v. Mu

1969(Cable v. Ellis, 120 Ill. 136 , 11 N.E. 188 .) We recently stated the equitable rule in Elder v. Clarke, 385 Ill. 335, 339 , 52 N.E.2d 778 , 780: `The rule is that where improvements of a permanent character are made in good faith by one in possession, believing himself to be a bona fide purchaser, or an owner for full value, and under circumstances justifying such a belief, and the expenditure is reasonable and of benefit to the estate, an allowance may be made in a court of equity, where title is found to be in another.' See also Gilbreath v. Dilday, 152 Ill. 207 , 38 N.E. 572 ; Lagger v. Mu

1969(Cable v. Ellis, 120 Ill. 136 , 11 N.E. 188 .) We recently stated the equitable rule in Elder v. Clarke, 385 Ill. 335, 339 , 52 N.E.2d 778 , 780: `The rule is that where improvements of a permanent character are made in good faith by one in possession, believing himself to be a bona fide purchaser, or an owner for full value, and under circumstances justifying such a belief, and the expenditure is reasonable and of benefit to the estate, an allowance may be made in a court of equity, where title is found to be in another.' See also Gilbreath v. Dilday, 152 Ill. 207 , 38 N.E. 572 ; Lagger v. Mu

1969(Cable v. Ellis, 120 Ill. 136 , 11 N.E. 188 .) We recently stated the equitable rule in Elder v. Clarke, 385 Ill. 335, 339 , 52 N.E.2d 778 , 780: `The rule is that where improvements of a permanent character are made in good faith by one in possession, believing himself to be a bona fide purchaser, or an owner for full value, and under circumstances justifying such a belief, and the expenditure is reasonable and of benefit to the estate, an allowance may be made in a court of equity, where title is found to be in another.' See also Gilbreath v. Dilday, 152 Ill. 207 , 38 N.E. 572 ; Lagger v. Mu

1969(Cable v. Ellis, 120 Ill. 136 , 11 N.E. 188 .) We recently stated the equitable rule in Elder v. Clarke, 385 Ill. 335, 339 , 52 N.E.2d 778 , 780: `The rule is that where improvements of a permanent character are made in good faith by one in possession, believing himself to be a bona fide purchaser, or an owner for full value, and under circumstances justifying such a belief, and the expenditure is reasonable and of benefit to the estate, an allowance may be made in a court of equity, where title is found to be in another.' See also Gilbreath v. Dilday, 152 Ill. 207 , 38 N.E. 572 ; Lagger v. Mu

1969(Cable v. Ellis, 120 Ill. 136 , 11 N.E. 188 .) We recently stated the equitable rule in Elder v. Clarke, 385 Ill. 335, 339 , 52 N.E.2d 778 , 780: `The rule is that where improvements of a permanent character are made in good faith by one in possession, believing himself to be a bona fide purchaser, or an owner for full value, and under circumstances justifying such a belief, and the expenditure is reasonable and of benefit to the estate, an allowance may be made in a court of equity, where title is found to be in another.' See also Gilbreath v. Dilday, 152 Ill. 207 , 38 N.E. 572 ; Lagger v. Mu

1969(Cable v. Ellis, 120 Ill. 136 , 11 N.E. 188 .) We recently stated the equitable rule in Elder v. Clarke, 385 Ill. 335, 339 , 52 N.E.2d 778 , 780: `The rule is that where improvements of a permanent character are made in good faith by one in possession, believing himself to be a bona fide purchaser, or an owner for full value, and under circumstances justifying such a belief, and the expenditure is reasonable and of benefit to the estate, an allowance may be made in a court of equity, where title is found to be in another.' See also Gilbreath v. Dilday, 152 Ill. 207 , 38 N.E. 572 ; Lagger v. Mu