prohibition standard in West Virginia

2013Standard for Issuance of Writ of Prohibition The standard for determining when a writ of prohibition should be issued is set forth in syllabus point one of Hinkle v. Black, 164 W.Va. 112 , 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979), which states: In determining whether to grant a rule to show cause in prohibition when a court is not acting in excess of its jurisdiction, this Court will look to the adequacy of other available remedies such as appeal and to the over-all economy of effort and money among litigants, lawyers and courts; however, this Court will use prohibition in this discretionary way to correct only

2013Standard for Issuance of Writ of Prohibition The standard for determining when a writ of prohibition should be issued is set forth in syllabus point one of Hinkle v. Black, 164 W.Va. 112 , 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979), which states: In determining whether to grant a rule to show cause in prohibition when a court is not acting in excess of its jurisdiction, this Court will look to the adequacy of other available remedies such as appeal and to the over-all economy of effort and money among litigants, lawyers and courts; however, this Court will use prohibition in this discretionary way to correct only

1993CAMC claims that the respondent judge's order violates the legal precepts contained in Dent v. Kaufman, 185 W.Va. 171 , 406 S.E.2d 68 (1991), which dealt with an analogous situation.

1993CAMC claims that the respondent judge's order violates the legal precepts contained in Dent v. Kaufman, 185 W.Va. 171 , 406 S.E.2d 68 (1991), which dealt with an analogous situation.

1993Allstate Insurance Co. v. Karl, ___ W.Va. ___, 437 S.E.2d 749 (1993), we summarized our practice with regard to an original prohibition in this Court: "The prohibition standard set out in Syllabus Point 1 of Hinkle v. Black, 164 W.Va. 112 , 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979), permits an original prohibition in this Court to correct substantial legal errors where the facts are undisputed and resolution of the errors is critical to the proper disposition of the case, thereby conserving costs to the parties and economizing judicial resources." I.

1993Allstate Insurance Co. v. Karl, 190 W.Va. 176 , 437 S.E.2d 749 (1993), we summarized our practice with regard to an original prohibition in this Court: “The prohibition standard set out in Syllabus Point 1 of Hinkle v. Black, 164 W.Va. 112 , 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979), permits an original prohibition in this Court to correct substantial legal errors where the facts are undisputed and resolution of the errors is critical to the proper disposition of the case, thereby conserving costs to the parties and economizing judicial resources.” I.

1993Accordingly, the amount of such tortfeasor's motor vehicle liability insurance coverage actually available to the injured person in question is to be deducted from the total amount of damages sustained by the injured person, and the insurer providing underinsured motorist coverage *58 is liable for the remainder of the damages, but not to exceed the coverage limits.' Syllabus Point 4, State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. Youler, 183 W.Va. 556 , 396 S.E.2d 737 (1990). "3. `W.Va.Code, 33-6-31(d) (1988), outlines certain rights given to an uninsured/underinsured insurance carrier where a tort

1993Accordingly, the amount of such tortfeasor's motor vehicle liability insurance coverage actually available to the injured person in question is to be deducted from the total amount of damages sustained by the injured person, and the insurer providing underinsured motorist coverage *58 is liable for the remainder of the damages, but not to exceed the coverage limits.' Syllabus Point 4, State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. Youler, 183 W.Va. 556 , 396 S.E.2d 737 (1990). "3. `W.Va.Code, 33-6-31(d) (1988), outlines certain rights given to an uninsured/underinsured insurance carrier where a tort

2005The rule is arbitrary and capricious and cannot stand.” Id. at 363 .