stare decisis doctrine in West Virginia

2026Va. 1023 , 207 S.E.2d 169 (1974) (“An appellate court should not overrule a previous decision recently rendered without evidence of changing conditions or serious judicial error in interpretation sufficient to compel deviation from the basic policy of the doctrine of stare decisis, which is to promote certainty, stability, and uniformity in the law.”).

2024Va. 1023 , 207 S.E.2d 169 (1974) (“An appellate court should not overrule a previous decision recently rendered without evidence of changing conditions or serious judicial error in interpretation sufficient to compel deviation from the basic policy of the doctrine of stare decisis, which is to promote certainty, stability, and uniformity in the law.”). 15 Accordingly, we reaffirmed the continuing vitality of both Wellman and Estate of Tawney in syllabus points three and five of Kellam as follows: “‘If an oil and gas lease provides for a royalty based on proceeds received by the lessee, unless

1998We stated in Hock v. City of Morgantown, 162 W.Va. 853, 856 , 253 S.E.2d 386, 388 (1979): Predictability is at the heart of the doctrine of stare decisis, and regardless of what we think of the merits of this case, we must be true to a reasonable interpretation of prior law in the area of property where certainty above all else is the preeminent compelling public policy to be served.

1998We stated in Hock v. City of Morgantown, 162 W.Va. 853, 856 , 253 S.E.2d 386, 388 (1979): Predictability is at the heart of the doctrine of stare decisis, and regardless of what we think of the merits of this case, we must be true to a reasonable interpretation of prior law in the area of property where certainty above all else is the preeminent compelling public policy to be served.

2013Accord Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 172 , 109 S.Ct. 2363, 2370 , 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989) (“Considerations of stare decisis have special force in the area of statutory interpretation!)]”).

2013Accord Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 172 , 109 S.Ct. 2363, 2370 , 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989) (“Considerations of stare decisis have special force in the area of statutory interpretation!)]”).

2002Briefly stated, "[ s ] tare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent... [U]nder the doctrine of stare decisis, a case is important only for what it decides—for the `what' not for `why' and not for `how.'" Banker v. Banker, 196 W.Va. 535 , 546 n. 13, 474 S.E.2d 465 , 476 n. 13 (1996).

2002Briefly stated, "[ s ] tare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent... [U]nder the doctrine of stare decisis, a case is important only for what it decides—for the `what' not for `why' and not for `how.'" Banker v. Banker, 196 W.Va. 535 , 546 n. 13, 474 S.E.2d 465 , 476 n. 13 (1996).

2020Jenkins v. City of Elkins, 230 W.

2015Pt. 2, in part, Dailey v. Bechtel Corp., 157 W.Va. 1023 , 207 S.E.2d 169 (1974). “[Ajdherence to prior decisions of this Court, and the consistency among the rulings of this Court that necessarily results therefrom, is particularly warranted when those prior decisions involve a matter of statutory construction.” Jenkins v. City of Elkins, 230 W.Va. 335, 341 , 738 S.E.2d 1, 7 (2012).

2014Comm’n, 502 U.S. 197, 202 , 112 S.Ct. 560, 564 , 116 L.Ed.2d 560 (1991) (“[W]e will not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification.” (citation omitted)); Rutherford, 229 W.Va. at 83 , 726 S.E.2d at 51 (Davis, J., concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part) (“Absent some compelling justification for deviation, such as a change in the law or a distinguishable fact pattern, the doctrine of stare decisis requires this Court to follow its prior opinions.” (emphasis added)).

2014Comm’n, 502 U.S. 197, 202 , 112 S.Ct. 560, 564 , 116 L.Ed.2d 560 (1991) (“[W]e will not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification.” (citation omitted)); Rutherford, 229 W.Va. at 83 , 726 S.E.2d at 51 (Davis, J., concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part) (“Absent some compelling justification for deviation, such as a change in the law or a distinguishable fact pattern, the doctrine of stare decisis requires this Court to follow its prior opinions.” (emphasis added)).

2012In Syllabus point 2 of Dailey v. Bechtel Corp., 157 W.Va. 1023 , 207 S.E.2d 169 (1974), we held that “[a]n appellate court should not overrule a previous decision recently rendered without evidence of changing conditions or serious judicial error in interpretation sufficient to compel deviation from the basic policy of the doctrine of stare decisis, which is to promote certainty, stability, and uniformity in the law.” See also In re Proposal to Incorporate Town of Chesapeake, 130 W.Va. 527, 536 , 45 S.E.2d 113, 118 (1947) (“The doctrine of stare decisis rests upon the principle that law by whi

2012In Syllabus point 2 of Dailey v. Bechtel Corp., 157 W.Va. 1023 , 207 S.E.2d 169 (1974), we held that “[a]n appellate court should not overrule a previous decision recently rendered without evidence of changing conditions or serious judicial error in interpretation sufficient to compel deviation from the basic policy of the doctrine of stare decisis, which is to promote certainty, stability, and uniformity in the law.” See also In re Proposal to Incorporate Town of Chesapeake, 130 W.Va. 527, 536 , 45 S.E.2d 113, 118 (1947) (“The doctrine of stare decisis rests upon the principle that law by whi

2012See also State v. Mullens, 221 W.Va. 70, 91 , 650 S.E.2d 169, 190 (2007) (“Our decision to depart from stare decisis is based upon a ‘serious judicial error’ in the Thompson opinion.” (footnote omitted)).

2012See also State v. Mullens, 221 W.Va. 70, 91 , 650 S.E.2d 169, 190 (2007) (“Our decision to depart from stare decisis is based upon a ‘serious judicial error’ in the Thompson opinion.” (footnote omitted)).

2011See Mayhew v. Mayhew, 205 W.Va. 490, 499 , 519 S.E.2d 188, 197 (1999) (" ’Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent.’ Banker v. Banker, 196 W.Va. 535 , 546 n. 13, 474 S.E.2d 465 , 476 n. 13 (1996)).

2011See Mayhew v. Mayhew, 205 W.Va. 490, 499 , 519 S.E.2d 188, 197 (1999) (" ’Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent.’ Banker v. Banker, 196 W.Va. 535 , 546 n. 13, 474 S.E.2d 465 , 476 n. 13 (1996)).

1965See also Lyon v. Grasselli Chemical Company, 106 W.Va. 518 , 146 S. E. 57 .

1965See also Lyon v. Grasselli Chemical Company, 106 W.Va. 518 , 146 S. E. 57 .

2014Comm’n, 502 U.S. 197, 202 , 112 S.Ct. 560, 564 , 116 L.Ed.2d 560 (1991) (“[W]e will not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification.” (citation omitted)); Rutherford, 229 W.Va. at 83 , 726 S.E.2d at 51 (Davis, J., concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part) (“Absent some compelling justification for deviation, such as a change in the law or a distinguishable fact pattern, the doctrine of stare decisis requires this Court to follow its prior opinions.” (emphasis added)).

2014Comm’n, 502 U.S. 197, 202 , 112 S.Ct. 560, 564 , 116 L.Ed.2d 560 (1991) (“[W]e will not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification.” (citation omitted)); Rutherford, 229 W.Va. at 83 , 726 S.E.2d at 51 (Davis, J., concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part) (“Absent some compelling justification for deviation, such as a change in the law or a distinguishable fact pattern, the doctrine of stare decisis requires this Court to follow its prior opinions.” (emphasis added)).

2014Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a rule of property long acquiesced in should not be overthrown except for compelling reasons of public policy or the imperative demands of justice.” Faith United Methodist Church and Cemetery of Terra Alta v. Morgan, 231 W.Va. 423, 437 , 745 S.E.2d 461, 475 (2013) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

2014Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a rule of property long acquiesced in should not be overthrown except for compelling reasons of public policy or the imperative demands of justice.” Faith United Methodist Church and Cemetery of Terra Alta v. Morgan, 231 W.Va. 423, 437 , 745 S.E.2d 461, 475 (2013) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

2013See State v. Wilcox, 169 W.

2013In Syllabus point 2 of Dailey v. Bechtel Corp., 157 W.Va. 1023 , 207 S.E.2d 169 (1974), we held that “[a]n appellate court should not overrule a previous decision ... without evidence of changing conditions or serious judicial error in interpretation sufficient to compel deviation from the basic policy of the doctrine of stare decisis, which is to promote certainty, stability, and uniformity in the law.” Of course, “the doctrine of stare decisis is not sacrosanct, and in rare instances there are valid reasons to depart from it.” Griffith v. ConAgra Brands, Inc., 229 W.Va. 190, 201 , 728 S.E.2d

2013In Syllabus point 2 of Dailey v. Bechtel Corp., 157 W.Va. 1023 , 207 S.E.2d 169 (1974), we held that “[a]n appellate court should not overrule a previous decision ... without evidence of changing conditions or serious judicial error in interpretation sufficient to compel deviation from the basic policy of the doctrine of stare decisis, which is to promote certainty, stability, and uniformity in the law.” Of course, “the doctrine of stare decisis is not sacrosanct, and in rare instances there are valid reasons to depart from it.” Griffith v. ConAgra Brands, Inc., 229 W.Va. 190, 201 , 728 S.E.2d

2011Cf. Syl. pt. 13, Long v. City of Weirton, 158 W.Va. 741 , 214 S.E.2d 832 (1975) ("The rule of stare decisis does not apply where the former decisions have misinterpreted or misapplied a rule or principle of law."), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Pritchard v. Arvon, 186 W.Va. 445 , 413 S.E.2d 100 (1991).

2011Cf. Syl. pt. 13, Long v. City of Weirton, 158 W.Va. 741 , 214 S.E.2d 832 (1975) ("The rule of stare decisis does not apply where the former decisions have misinterpreted or misapplied a rule or principle of law."), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Pritchard v. Arvon, 186 W.Va. 445 , 413 S.E.2d 100 (1991).