addressed standard in West Virginia

2005In Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc., 194 W.Va. 97 , 459 S.E.2d 374 (1995), this Court addressed the standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial.

2005In Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc., 194 W.Va. 97 , 459 S.E.2d 374 (1995), this Court addressed the standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial.

2020Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 , 713 (4th Cir. 2002), in which the court addressed factors for determining “when it can be deemed that an out-of-state citizen, through electronic contacts, has conceptually ‘entered’ the State via the Internet for jurisdictional purposes,” In ALS Scan, the court adopted the approach set forth in Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D.

2020Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 , 713 (4th Cir. 2002), in which the court addressed factors for determining “when it can be deemed that an out-of-state citizen, through electronic contacts, has conceptually ‘entered’ the State via the Internet for jurisdictional purposes,” In ALS Scan, the court adopted the approach set forth in Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D.

2020Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 , 713 (4th Cir. 2002), in which the court addressed factors for determining “when it can be deemed that an out-of-state citizen, through electronic contacts, has conceptually ‘entered’ the State via the Internet for jurisdictional purposes,” In ALS Scan, the court adopted the approach set forth in Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D.

2020Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 , 713 (4th Cir. 2002), in which the court addressed factors for determining “when it can be deemed that an out-of-state citizen, through electronic contacts, has conceptually ‘entered’ the State via the Internet for jurisdictional purposes,” In ALS Scan, the court adopted the approach set forth in Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D.

2014Standard of Review This Court addressed our standard of review for a writ of prohibition in a criminal matter in Syllabus Point 5 of State v. Lewis, 188 W.Va. 85 , 422 S.E.2d 807 (1992): The State may seek a writ of prohibition in this Court in a criminal case where the trial court has exceeded or acted outside of its jurisdiction.

2014Standard of Review This Court addressed our standard of review for a writ of prohibition in a criminal matter in Syllabus Point 5 of State v. Lewis, 188 W.Va. 85 , 422 S.E.2d 807 (1992): The State may seek a writ of prohibition in this Court in a criminal case where the trial court has exceeded or acted outside of its jurisdiction.

1999Standard of Review This Court addressed the standard for determining the appropriateness of a writ of prohibition in Syllabus Point 1 of Hinkle v. Black, 164 W.Va. 112 , 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979): In determining whether to grant a rule to show cause in prohibition when a court is not acting in excess of its jurisdiction, this Court will look to the adequacy of other available remedies such as appeal and to the over-all economy of effort and money among litigants, lawyers and courts; however, this Court will use prohibition in this discretionary way to correct only substantial, clear-cut, legal err

1999Standard of Review This Court addressed the standard for determining the appropriateness of a writ of prohibition in Syllabus Point 1 of Hinkle v. Black, 164 W.Va. 112 , 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979): In determining whether to grant a rule to show cause in prohibition when a court is not acting in excess of its jurisdiction, this Court will look to the adequacy of other available remedies such as appeal and to the over-all economy of effort and money among litigants, lawyers and courts; however, this Court will use prohibition in this discretionary way to correct only substantial, clear-cut, legal err

2021Va. 89 , 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011), this Court addressed the factors that must be considered when incarceration is the basis for termination of parental rights.

2015This Court addressed the standard of review that applies to such matters in syllabus point one of Muscatell v. Cline, 196 W.Va. 588 , 474 S.E.2d 518 (1996): On appeal of an administrative order ■ from a circuit court, this Court is bound by the statutory standards contained in W.

2015This Court addressed the standard of review that applies to such matters in syllabus point one of Muscatell v. Cline, 196 W.Va. 588 , 474 S.E.2d 518 (1996): On appeal of an administrative order ■ from a circuit court, this Court is bound by the statutory standards contained in W.

2012In syllabus point one of Foster v. Cooper, 155 W.Va. 619 , 186 S.E.2d 837 (1972), this Court stated the very important principle that “[t]he Constitution of West Virginia being a restriction of power rather than a grant thereof, the legislature has the authority to enact any measure not inhibited thereby.” In syllabus point three of Willis v. O’Brien, 151 W.Va. 628 , 153 S.E.2d 178 (1967), this Court addressed the presumption of constitutionality and explained as follows: “When the constitutionality of a statute is questioned every reasonable construction of the statute must be resorted to by

2012In syllabus point one of Foster v. Cooper, 155 W.Va. 619 , 186 S.E.2d 837 (1972), this Court stated the very important principle that “[t]he Constitution of West Virginia being a restriction of power rather than a grant thereof, the legislature has the authority to enact any measure not inhibited thereby.” In syllabus point three of Willis v. O’Brien, 151 W.Va. 628 , 153 S.E.2d 178 (1967), this Court addressed the presumption of constitutionality and explained as follows: “When the constitutionality of a statute is questioned every reasonable construction of the statute must be resorted to by

2012In syllabus point one of Foster v. Cooper, 155 W.Va. 619 , 186 S.E.2d 837 (1972), this Court stated the very important principle that “[t]he Constitution of West Virginia being a restriction of power rather than a grant thereof, the legislature has the authority to enact any measure not inhibited thereby.” In syllabus point three of Willis v. O’Brien, 151 W.Va. 628 , 153 S.E.2d 178 (1967), this Court addressed the presumption of constitutionality and explained as follows: “When the constitutionality of a statute is questioned every reasonable construction of the statute must be resorted to by

2012In syllabus point one of Foster v. Cooper, 155 W.Va. 619 , 186 S.E.2d 837 (1972), this Court stated the very important principle that “[t]he Constitution of West Virginia being a restriction of power rather than a grant thereof, the legislature has the authority to enact any measure not inhibited thereby.” In syllabus point three of Willis v. O’Brien, 151 W.Va. 628 , 153 S.E.2d 178 (1967), this Court addressed the presumption of constitutionality and explained as follows: “When the constitutionality of a statute is questioned every reasonable construction of the statute must be resorted to by

2007Va. 700 , 478 S.E.2d 550 (1996), this Court addressed whether the rule announced in State v. Neuman, 179 W.Va. 580 , 371 S.E.2d 77 (1988), requiring a court to make a determination on the record that a defendant has knowingly, *214 voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right of self-incrimination before permitting a defendant to testify in his own behalf should be applied retroactively.

2007Va. 700 , 478 S.E.2d 550 (1996), this Court addressed whether the rule announced in State v. Neuman, 179 W.Va. 580 , 371 S.E.2d 77 (1988), requiring a court to make a determination on the record that a defendant has knowingly, *214 voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right of self-incrimination before permitting a defendant to testify in his own behalf should be applied retroactively.

2007In Repass v. Workers' Compensation Division, 212 W.Va. 86 , 569 S.E.2d 162 (2002), this Court addressed a challenge to a rule [13] arguably at odds with our workers' compensation statutes.

2007In Repass v. Workers' Compensation Division, 212 W.Va. 86 , 569 S.E.2d 162 (2002), this Court addressed a challenge to a rule [13] arguably at odds with our workers' compensation statutes.

2007Va. 700 , 478 S.E.2d 550 (1996), this Court addressed whether the rule announced in State v. Neuman, 179 W.Va. 580 , 371 S.E.2d 77 (1988), requiring a court to make a determination on the record that a defendant has knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right of self-incrimination before permitting a defendant to testify in his own behalf should be applied retroactively.

2007Va. 700 , 478 S.E.2d 550 (1996), this Court addressed whether the rule announced in State v. Neuman, 179 W.Va. 580 , 371 S.E.2d 77 (1988), requiring a court to make a determination on the record that a defendant has knowingly, *214 voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right of self-incrimination before permitting a defendant to testify in his own behalf should be applied retroactively.

2004Code § 29-12A-5(a)(9) (1986) which states: A political subdivision is immune from liability if a loss or claim results from: ... (9) Licensing powers or functions including, but not limited to, the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of or failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke any permit, license, certificate, approval, order or similar authority[.] This Court addressed the immunity of political subdivisions in the case of Hose v. Berkeley County Planning Com'n, 194 W.Va. 515 , 460 S.E.2d 761 (1995).

2004Code § 29-12A-5(a)(9) (1986) which states: A political subdivision is immune from liability if a loss or claim results from: ... (9) Licensing powers or functions including, but not limited to, the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of or failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke any permit, license, certificate, approval, order or similar authority[.] This Court addressed the immunity of political subdivisions in the case of Hose v. Berkeley County Planning Com'n, 194 W.Va. 515 , 460 S.E.2d 761 (1995).

2001A verdict should not be disturbed based on the formulation of the language of the jury instructions so long as the instructions given as a whole are accurate and fair to both parties. *671 We have also held that "[a]s a general rule, the refusal to give a requested jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." Syl. pt. 1, in part, State v. Hinkle, 200 W.Va. 280 , 489 S.E.2d 257 (1996).

2001A verdict should not be disturbed based on the formulation of the language of the jury instructions so long as the instructions given as a whole are accurate and fair to both parties. *671 We have also held that "[a]s a general rule, the refusal to give a requested jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." Syl. pt. 1, in part, State v. Hinkle, 200 W.Va. 280 , 489 S.E.2d 257 (1996).

1991Co. v. McMahon & Sons, Inc., 177 W.Va. 734 , 356 S.E.2d 488 (1987), this Court addressed the doctrine of reasonable expectation as it relates to insurance policies.

1991Co. v. McMahon & Sons, Inc., 177 W.Va. 734 , 356 S.E.2d 488 (1987), this Court addressed the doctrine of reasonable expectation as it relates to insurance policies.

1988Syllabus point 3, State v. Brumfield, supra. In reaching the decision in Brumfield the Court referred to State v. Miller, 175 W.Va. 616 , 336 S.E.2d 910 (1985), where the Court addressed the factors which would suggest that a kidnapping was purely incidental to another crime.

1988Syllabus point 3, State v. Brumfield, supra. In reaching the decision in Brumfield the Court referred to State v. Miller, 175 W.Va. 616 , 336 S.E.2d 910 (1985), where the Court addressed the factors which would suggest that a kidnapping was purely incidental to another crime.