hard and fast rule in West Virginia

2013Evidence that the parent seeking a name change is a “notorious criminal,” Harris, 160 W.Va. at 428 , 236 S.E.2d at 429 , the only exception to the hard-and-fast rule suggested in that case?

2013Va. at 428 , 236 S.E.2d at 429 , the only exception to the hard-and-fast rule suggested in that case?

2025Yet “this Court cannot create a hard and fast rule” regarding the language in the leases at issue, 12 See Syl. pt. 1, McCullough Oil, Inc. v. Rezek, 176 W.

2025Va. 638 , 346 S.E.2d 788 (1986) (“An oil and gas lease (or other mineral lease) is both a conveyance and a contract.

2022We turn now to the petitioner’s specific arguments, which boil down to four contentions: that the circuit court erred in applying Carden, 18 wrongly concluding that it materially modified the hard-and-fast rule set forth in Hite v. Donnally, 85 W.

2022Va. 640 , 102 S.E. 478 (1920); that the court erred in finding that neither the petitioner nor her predecessors in interest, Mr. and Mrs. Stephens, were bona fide purchasers of the common area; that the court erred in applying the “common scheme” doctrine to the facts at bar; and that the court erred in applying the “unity rule” to the facts at bar.

2013We recognized such practice was in keeping with the longstanding principle set forth in syllabus point eighteen of State v. Hamric, 151 W.Va. 1 , 151 S.E.2d 252 (1966): “[W]here objections to questions or evidence by a party are sustained by the trial court during the trial and the jury [is] instructed not to consider such matter, it will not constitute reversible error.” However, this Court has not established a hard and fast rule that a curative instruction is always required regardless if objection is raised, or that such instruction would always serve to cure the erroneous introduction of

2013We recognized such practice was in keeping with the longstanding principle set forth in syllabus point eighteen of State v. Hamric, 151 W.Va. 1 , 151 S.E.2d 252 (1966): “[W]here objections to questions or evidence by a party are sustained by the trial court during the trial and the jury [is] instructed not to consider such matter, it will not constitute reversible error.” However, this Court has not established a hard and fast rule that a curative instruction is always required regardless if objection is raised, or that such instruction would always serve to cure the erroneous introduction of

2013Evidence that the parent seeking a name change is a “notorious criminal,” Harris, 160 W.Va. at 428 , 236 S.E.2d at 429 , the only exception to the hard-and-fast rule suggested in that case?

2005In Metz v. Metz, 61 P.3d 383 (Wyo.2003), the Wyoming court explained that “we decline to adopt a hard and fast rule that all disability benefits are, or are not, marital property subject to distribution.” 61 P.3d at *701 388.

2005“Rather, the courts must make a determination on a case-by-case basis according to the particular facts giving careful consideration to the entire marital property and keeping an eye toward a just and equitable distribution.” Id.

1953All these rights are deemed by the law to have been waived or abandoned by partial acceptance of the piling, whether the defendant actually intended to give them up or not.” See Rice & Co. v. Roberts, 114 W.