burden of establishing claim in West Virginia

1972Though the claimant is entitled to the benefit of the liberality rule ". . . in appraising the evidence presented, nevertheless the burden of establishing a claim rests upon the person who asserts it and no rule of liberality will take the place of the requirement that the claim must be established by proof." Whitt v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 153 W.Va. 688, 693 , 172 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1970); Eady v. State Compensation Commissioner, 148 W.Va. 5 , 132 S.E.2d 642 (1963).

1972Though the claimant is entitled to the benefit of the liberality rule ". . . in appraising the evidence presented, nevertheless the burden of establishing a claim rests upon the person who asserts it and no rule of liberality will take the place of the requirement that the claim must be established by proof." Whitt v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 153 W.Va. 688, 693 , 172 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1970); Eady v. State Compensation Commissioner, 148 W.Va. 5 , 132 S.E.2d 642 (1963).

2002In syllabus point one of Hoff v. State Compensation Commissioner, 148 W.Va. 33 , 132 S.E.2d 772 (1963), overruled on other grounds, Brogan v. Workers’ Compensation Commissioner, 174 W.Va. 517 , 327 S.E.2d 694 (1984), this Court emphatically advised: Although the liberality rule in the interpretation of evidence in Workmen’s Compensation cases is approved by this Court, the burden of establishing a claim for compensation rests upon the person asserting such claim.

2002In syllabus point one of Hoff v. State Compensation Commissioner, 148 W.Va. 33 , 132 S.E.2d 772 (1963), overruled on other grounds, Brogan v. Workers’ Compensation Commissioner, 174 W.Va. 517 , 327 S.E.2d 694 (1984), this Court emphatically advised: Although the liberality rule in the interpretation of evidence in Workmen’s Compensation cases is approved by this Court, the burden of establishing a claim for compensation rests upon the person asserting such claim.

1965In the case last referred to above, the Court stated: “* * * While informality in the presentation of evidence is permitted in compensation cases, and, under many decisions of this Court, a rule of liberality in favor of the claimant will be invoked in appraising the evidence presented, still the burden of establishing a claim rests upon the one who asserts it, and no rule of liberality will take the place of required proof.” To the same effect, see Turner v. State Compensation Com *224 missioner et al., 147 W.

1963Turner v. State Compensation Commissioner, 147 W.

1962However, it has just as firmly held, as it did in Williams v. State Compensation Commissioner, 127 W.Va. 78 , 31 S.E.2d 546 , *383 that "* * * while informality in the presentation of evidence is permitted in compensation cases, and, under many decisions of this Court, a rule of liberality * * * will be invoked in appraising the evidence presented, still the burden of establishing a claim rests upon the one who asserts it, and no rule of liberality will take the place of required proof." This Court, therefore, adheres to the decision arrived at on the former hearing of this case; however, in t

1962However, it has just as firmly held, as it did in Williams v. State Compensation Commissioner, 127 W.Va. 78 , 31 S.E.2d 546 , *383 that "* * * while informality in the presentation of evidence is permitted in compensation cases, and, under many decisions of this Court, a rule of liberality * * * will be invoked in appraising the evidence presented, still the burden of establishing a claim rests upon the one who asserts it, and no rule of liberality will take the place of required proof." This Court, therefore, adheres to the decision arrived at on the former hearing of this case; however, in t

1962While this Court has held in Horner v. Amick, 64 W.Va. 172 , 61 S.E. 40 , and in several other cases, that Section 5, Article 8 of the Constitution of this State, which provides: "When a judgment or decree is reversed or affirmed by the supreme court of appeals, every point fairly arising upon the record of the case shall be considered and decided; and the reasons therefor shall be concisely stated in writing and preserved with the record of the case; and it shall be the duty of the court to prepare a syllabus of the points adjudicated in each case concurred in by three of the judges thereof,

1962While this Court has held in Horner v. Amick, 64 W.Va. 172 , 61 S.E. 40 , and in several other cases, that Section 5, Article 8 of the Constitution of this State, which provides: "When a judgment or decree is reversed or affirmed by the supreme court of appeals, every point fairly arising upon the record of the case shall be considered and decided; and the reasons therefor shall be concisely stated in writing and preserved with the record of the case; and it shall be the duty of the court to prepare a syllabus of the points adjudicated in each case concurred in by three of the judges thereof,

2026Va. 346 , 352 n.8, 472 S.E.2d 792 , 798 n.8 (1996) (setting out “the customary standard… for issuing a preliminary injunction”).18 Respondents, as the parties seeking an injunction, have the burden of establishing the factors justifying injunctive 18 The standard for granting a preliminary injunction is similar to the standard for granting a permanent injunction, but one seeking a preliminary injunction must show a mere likelihood of success on the merits, while one seeking a permanent injunction must actually succeed on the merits. 12 relief.

2011"The burden of establishing these factors is on the defendant." Rakas, 439 U.S. at 134 , 99 S.Ct. 421 .

2011"The burden of establishing these factors is on the defendant." Rakas, 439 U.S. at 134 , 99 S.Ct. 421 .

2010“If a [right] was violated during the ... proceedings, and if the defendant did not waive the [right], then there has been an ‘error’ ... despite the absence of a timely objection.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733-34 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1777 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

2010“If a [right] was violated during the ... proceedings, and if the defendant did not waive the [right], then there has been an ‘error’ ... despite the absence of a timely objection.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733-34 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1777 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

2002In syllabus point one of Hoff v. State Compensation Commissioner, 148 W.Va. 33 , 132 S.E.2d 772 (1963), overruled on other grounds, Brogan v. Workers’ Compensation Commissioner, 174 W.Va. 517 , 327 S.E.2d 694 (1984), this Court emphatically advised: Although the liberality rule in the interpretation of evidence in Workmen’s Compensation cases is approved by this Court, the burden of establishing a claim for compensation rests upon the person asserting such claim.

2002In syllabus point one of Hoff v. State Compensation Commissioner, 148 W.Va. 33 , 132 S.E.2d 772 (1963), overruled on other grounds, Brogan v. Workers’ Compensation Commissioner, 174 W.Va. 517 , 327 S.E.2d 694 (1984), this Court emphatically advised: Although the liberality rule in the interpretation of evidence in Workmen’s Compensation cases is approved by this Court, the burden of establishing a claim for compensation rests upon the person asserting such claim.

1985Linville v. State Workmen’s Compensation Comm’r, 160 W.Va. 549, 553-54 , 236 S.E.2d 41, 44 (1977).

1970The following language appears in the opinion of McGeary v. Compensation Director, 148 W.

1965Va. 145 , 126 S. E. 2d 379, 382-83 ; 54 W.

1963Etta Meade v. State Compensation Commissioner, 147 W.