set out standard in West Virginia

1990This Court set out the standard in Syllabus point 1 of State v. Starkey, 161 W.Va. 517 , 244 S.E.2d 219 (1978), where we said: In a criminal case, a verdict of guilt will not be set aside on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence, where the state's evidence is sufficient to convince impartial minds of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

1990This Court set out the standard in Syllabus point 1 of State v. Starkey, 161 W.Va. 517 , 244 S.E.2d 219 (1978), where we said: In a criminal case, a verdict of guilt will not be set aside on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence, where the state's evidence is sufficient to convince impartial minds of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

2000This Court set out the standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in Syllabus point 3 of State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657 , 461 S.E.2d 163 : A criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction takes on a heavy burden.

2000This Court set out the standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in Syllabus point 3 of State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657 , 461 S.E.2d 163 : A criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction takes on a heavy burden.

1998Co., 181 W.Va. 16 , 380 S.E.2d 183 (1989), this Court set out that test as follows: In determining whether a Contract Clause violation has occurred, a three-step test is utilized.

1998Co., 181 W.Va. 16 , 380 S.E.2d 183 (1989), this Court set out that test as follows: In determining whether a Contract Clause violation has occurred, a three-step test is utilized.

2005This Court set out the standard for determining whether to address a moot issue in syllabus point one of Israel by Israel v. West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Commission, 182 W.Va. 454 , 388 S.E.2d 480 (1989): Three factors to be considered in deciding whether to address technically moot issues are as follows: first, the court will determine whether sufficient collateral consequences will result from determination of the questions presented so as to justify relief; second, while technically moot in the immediate context, questions of great public interest may nevertheless be addressed

2005This Court set out the standard for determining whether to address a moot issue in syllabus point one of Israel by Israel v. West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Commission, 182 W.Va. 454 , 388 S.E.2d 480 (1989): Three factors to be considered in deciding whether to address technically moot issues are as follows: first, the court will determine whether sufficient collateral consequences will result from determination of the questions presented so as to justify relief; second, while technically moot in the immediate context, questions of great public interest may nevertheless be addressed

2002Standard of Review This Court set out the standard of review of lawyer disciplinary proceedings in syllabus point three of Committee on Legal Ethics v. McCorkle, 192 W.Va. 286 , 452 S.E.2d 377 (1994), as follows: A de novo standard applies to a review of the adjudicatory record made before the [Lawyer Disciplinary Board] of the West Virginia State Bar as to questions of law, questions of application of the law to the facts, and questions of appropriate sanctions; this Court gives respectful consideration to the [Board's] recommendations while ultimately exercising its own independent judgment.

2002Standard of Review This Court set out the standard of review of lawyer disciplinary proceedings in syllabus point three of Committee on Legal Ethics v. McCorkle, 192 W.Va. 286 , 452 S.E.2d 377 (1994), as follows: A de novo standard applies to a review of the adjudicatory record made before the [Lawyer Disciplinary Board] of the West Virginia State Bar as to questions of law, questions of application of the law to the facts, and questions of appropriate sanctions; this Court gives respectful consideration to the [Board's] recommendations while ultimately exercising its own independent judgment.

1998STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court set out the standard of review of a civil contempt order in syllabus point 1 of Carter v. Carter, 196 W.Va. 239 , 470 S.E.2d 193 (1996), as follows: In reviewing the findings of fact and conclusions of law of a circuit court supporting a civil contempt order, we apply a three-pronged standard of'review.

1998STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court set out the standard of review of a civil contempt order in syllabus point 1 of Carter v. Carter, 196 W.Va. 239 , 470 S.E.2d 193 (1996), as follows: In reviewing the findings of fact and conclusions of law of a circuit court supporting a civil contempt order, we apply a three-pronged standard of'review.

1998STANDARD OF REVIEW Goffs motion for reconsideration was made pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure. 10 This Court set out the standard of review for a trial court’s decision on a Rule 35 motion in syllabus point 1 of State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298 , 480 S.E.2d 507 (1996): In reviewing the findings of fact and conclusions of law of a circuit court concerning an order on a motion made under Rule 35 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, we apply a three-pronged standard of review.

1998STANDARD OF REVIEW Goffs motion for reconsideration was made pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure. 10 This Court set out the standard of review for a trial court’s decision on a Rule 35 motion in syllabus point 1 of State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298 , 480 S.E.2d 507 (1996): In reviewing the findings of fact and conclusions of law of a circuit court concerning an order on a motion made under Rule 35 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, we apply a three-pronged standard of review.