ruling error in West Virginia

2020Pt. 1, in part, State v. Myers, 204 W.Va. 449 , 513 S.E.2d 676 (1998).”)); Ringer v. John, 230 W.Va. 687 , 742 S.E.2d 103 (2013) (Court deciding case on the basis of an issue not raised by the parties).

2020Pt. 1, in part, State v. Myers, 204 W.Va. 449 , 513 S.E.2d 676 (1998).”)); Ringer v. John, 230 W.Va. 687 , 742 S.E.2d 103 (2013) (Court deciding case on the basis of an issue not raised by the parties).

2020Pt. 1, in part, State v. Myers, 204 W.Va. 449 , 513 S.E.2d 676 (1998).”)); Ringer v. John, 230 W.Va. 687 , 742 S.E.2d 103 (2013) (Court deciding case on the basis of an issue not raised by the parties).

2020Pt. 1, in part, State v. Myers, 204 W.Va. 449 , 513 S.E.2d 676 (1998).”)); Ringer v. John, 230 W.Va. 687 , 742 S.E.2d 103 (2013) (Court deciding case on the basis of an issue not raised by the parties).

2020Cf. In re K.R., 229 W.Va. 733 , 744 n. 23, 735 S.E.2d 882 , 893 n. 23 (2012) (“While neither party assigned this specific ruling as error, this does not affect this Court's ability to determine it to be error: [I]t is within the authority of this Court to “sua sponte, in the interest of justice, notice plain error.” Cartwright v. McComas, 223 W.Va. 161, 164 , 672 S.E.2d 297, 300 (2008) (quoting Syl.

2020Cf. In re K.R., 229 W.Va. 733 , 744 n. 23, 735 S.E.2d 882 , 893 n. 23 (2012) (“While neither party assigned this specific ruling as error, this does not affect this Court's ability to determine it to be error: [I]t is within the authority of this Court to “sua sponte, in the interest of justice, notice plain error.” Cartwright v. McComas, 223 W.Va. 161, 164 , 672 S.E.2d 297, 300 (2008) (quoting Syl.

2022As set forth above, a court can adjust equitable distributions based on the “the effect of the marriage on the income-earning abilities of the parties.” Sellitti, 192 W.

2016Discussion We review the denial of a habeas petition under the following standard: 4 Petitioner filed a pro se supplement to counsel’s amended petition in December of 2011. 5 Petitioner’s counsel states that his intent was to obtain a ruling on the instruction issue, and to preserve the other issues raised in his petition for a future hearing. 6 A Losh list is submitted pursuant to Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W.Va. 762 , 277 S.E.2d 606 (1981). 7 Petitioner’s counsel states that he always objects to being required to submit a Losh list because he believes being forced to disclose the theories for rel

2016Discussion We review the denial of a habeas petition under the following standard: 4 Petitioner filed a pro se supplement to counsel’s amended petition in December of 2011. 5 Petitioner’s counsel states that his intent was to obtain a ruling on the instruction issue, and to preserve the other issues raised in his petition for a future hearing. 6 A Losh list is submitted pursuant to Losh v. McKenzie, 166 W.Va. 762 , 277 S.E.2d 606 (1981). 7 Petitioner’s counsel states that he always objects to being required to submit a Losh list because he believes being forced to disclose the theories for rel

1987A. Whether a witness may be exempted from a general sequestration order is a matter which is entrusted to the sound *316 discretion of the trial court, as we said in Syllabus Point 4 of State v. Wilson, 157 W.Va. 1036 , 207 S.E.2d 174 (1974): “The question as to which witnesses may be exempt from a sequestration of witnesses ordered by the court lies within the discretion of the trial court, and unless the trial court acts arbitrarily to the prejudice of the rights of the defendant the exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed on appeal.” Our cases have recognized that one class of wit

1987A. Whether a witness may be exempted from a general sequestration order is a matter which is entrusted to the sound *316 discretion of the trial court, as we said in Syllabus Point 4 of State v. Wilson, 157 W.Va. 1036 , 207 S.E.2d 174 (1974): “The question as to which witnesses may be exempt from a sequestration of witnesses ordered by the court lies within the discretion of the trial court, and unless the trial court acts arbitrarily to the prejudice of the rights of the defendant the exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed on appeal.” Our cases have recognized that one class of wit

1977Through the years the Court has adhered to the ruling principle, as stated in point ten of the syllabus in Mullens v. Frazer, 134 W.

1977Va. 409 , 59 S.E.2d 694 (1950), as follows: “In equity the finding of a trial chancellor will not be disturbed on appeal, unless clearly wrong or against the plain preponderance of the evidence.” Upon consideration of the record in this action, together with the briefs and arguments of counsel thereon, we affirm the trial court’s conclusions and rulings as embraced in the two decrees and orders entered in the Circuit Court of Preston County on November 20, 1975.

1956Va. 356 , 87 S. E. 454 , L.R.A., 1916D, 220, this Court held that, when a plea is *698 tendered and objection to it is sustained, an exception is taken, and the order of the court shows the ruling and the exception and identifies the plea, the plea is a part of the record.