of review standard in West Virginia

2003STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard for our review of an order granting summary judgment is well established. ‘“A circuit court’s entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.’ Syllabus point 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189 , 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994).” Syl. pt. 3, Tennant v. Smallwood, 211 W.Va. 703 , 568 S.E.2d 10 (2002).

2003STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard for our review of an order granting summary judgment is well established. ‘“A circuit court’s entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.’ Syllabus point 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189 , 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994).” Syl. pt. 3, Tennant v. Smallwood, 211 W.Va. 703 , 568 S.E.2d 10 (2002).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW Our standard for reviewing certified questions presented from a circuit court is well established: "[t]he appellate standard of review of questions of law answered and certified by a circuit court is de novo ." Syl. pt. 1, Gallapoo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 197 W.

1998STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review to be applied in reviewing a certified question was recently set forth in Syllabus Point One of Gallapoo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 197 W.Va. 172 , 475 S.E.2d 172 (1996), wherein we held that "[t]he appellate standard of review of questions of law answered and certified by a circuit court is de novo. " III.

2026STANDARD OF REVIEW Our standard of review is set forth in Syllabus Point 1 of State v. Lucas, 201 W.

2014STANDARD OF REVIEW Our standard of review in this ease is stated in syllabus point 1 of State v. Lucas, 201 W.Va. 271 , 496 S.E.2d 221 (1997) as follows: The Supreme Court of Appeals reviews sentencing orders, including orders of restitution made in connection with a defendant’s sentencing, under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands.

2000STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review applicable to a circuit court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence was articulated by this Court in the first and second syllabus points of State v. Lacy, 196 W.Va. 104 , 468 S.E.2d 719 (1996): 1.

2000STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review applicable to a circuit court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence was articulated by this Court in the first and second syllabus points of State v. Lacy, 196 W.Va. 104 , 468 S.E.2d 719 (1996): 1.

2003STANDARD OF REVIEW The issue of whether Appellee is liable for the medical debts of her husband presents a question of law, which we consider de novo: “ ‘ “Where the issue on appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Syllabus point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).’ Syllabus point 2, Coordinating Council for Independent Living, Inc. v. Palmer, 209 W.Va. 274 , 546 S.E.2d 454 (2001).” Syl. pt. 1, American Tower Corp. v. Common Council of City of Beckley, 21

2003STANDARD OF REVIEW The issue of whether Appellee is liable for the medical debts of her husband presents a question of law, which we consider de novo: “ ‘ “Where the issue on appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Syllabus point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).’ Syllabus point 2, Coordinating Council for Independent Living, Inc. v. Palmer, 209 W.Va. 274 , 546 S.E.2d 454 (2001).” Syl. pt. 1, American Tower Corp. v. Common Council of City of Beckley, 21

2001STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for unemployment compensation cases was enunciated in Syllabus Point 3 of Adkins v. Gatson, 192 W.Va. 561 , 453 S.E.2d 395 (1994), as follows: A person who charges or accepts a fee for such service in an amount unapproved by the board shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

2001STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for unemployment compensation cases was enunciated in Syllabus Point 3 of Adkins v. Gatson, 192 W.Va. 561 , 453 S.E.2d 395 (1994), as follows: A person who charges or accepts a fee for such service in an amount unapproved by the board shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

2015STANDARD OF REVIEW Our standard of review is set forth in Syllabus Point 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417 , 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006).

2015STANDARD OF REVIEW Our standard of review is set forth in Syllabus Point 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417 , 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006).

2006STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for a lawyer disciplinary proceeding was set out in syllabus point 3 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] 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.

2006STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for a lawyer disciplinary proceeding was set out in syllabus point 3 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] 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.

2006We review questions of law de novo. " Syllabus, Carr v. Hancock, 216 W.Va. 474 , 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004). *725 Syl. pt 1, Staton v. Staton, 218 W.Va. 201 , 624 S.E.2d 548 (2005).

2006We review questions of law de novo. " Syllabus, Carr v. Hancock, 216 W.Va. 474 , 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004). *725 Syl. pt 1, Staton v. Staton, 218 W.Va. 201 , 624 S.E.2d 548 (2005).

2005STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review concerning appeals to this Court from non-jury trials, or bench trials, is set forth in Syllabus Point 1 of Public Citizen, Inc. v. First National Bank, 198 W.Va. 329 , 480 S.E.2d 538 (1996): In reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions of the circuit court made after a bench trial, a two-pronged deferential standard of review is applied.

2005STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review concerning appeals to this Court from non-jury trials, or bench trials, is set forth in Syllabus Point 1 of Public Citizen, Inc. v. First National Bank, 198 W.Va. 329 , 480 S.E.2d 538 (1996): In reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions of the circuit court made after a bench trial, a two-pronged deferential standard of review is applied.

1999STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review applicable to this case was set out in Syllabus point 1 of Burnside v. Burnside, 194 W.Va. 263 , 460 S.E.2d 264 (1995): In reviewing challenges to findings made by a family law master that also were adopted by a circuit court, a three-pronged standard of review is applied.

1999STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review applicable to this case was set out in Syllabus point 1 of Burnside v. Burnside, 194 W.Va. 263 , 460 S.E.2d 264 (1995): In reviewing challenges to findings made by a family law master that also were adopted by a circuit court, a three-pronged standard of review is applied.

2023As we have previously observed, “our cases . . . make clear that mandamus will lie against a State official to adjust prospectively his or her conduct to bring it into compliance with any statutory or constitutional standard.” Gribben v. Kirk, 195 W.

2020STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review applicable to Antero’s appeal can be found in Syllabus Point 1 of Griffith v. ConAgra Brands, Inc., 229 W.

2020Va. 190 , 728 S.E.2d 74 (2012): In an administrative appeal from the decision of the West Virginia Office of Tax Appeals, this Court will review the final order of the circuit court pursuant to the standards of review in the State Administrative Procedures Act set forth in W.

2018STANDARD OF REVIEW Our standard of review is set forth in Syllabus Point 3 of State v. Vance , 207 W.Va. 640 , 535 S.E.2d 484 (2000) : In reviewing challenges to findings and rulings made by a circuit court, we apply a *268 two-pronged deferential standard of review.

2018STANDARD OF REVIEW Our standard of review is set forth in Syllabus Point 3 of State v. Vance , 207 W.Va. 640 , 535 S.E.2d 484 (2000) : In reviewing challenges to findings and rulings made by a circuit court, we apply a *268 two-pronged deferential standard of review.

2016STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review on appeal of an election contest proceeding was articulated by this Court in Syllabus point 6 of Brooks v. Crum, 158 W.Va. 882 , 216 S.E.2d 220 (1976): While the appellate court may examine the record in the review of election contests in order to reach an independent conclusion, it merely determines whether the conclusions of law are warranted by the findings of fact, and it will not, as a general rule, disturb findings of fact on conflicting evidence unless such findings are manifestly wrong or against the weight of the evidence.

2016STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review on appeal of an election contest proceeding was articulated by this Court in Syllabus point 6 of Brooks v. Crum, 158 W.Va. 882 , 216 S.E.2d 220 (1976): While the appellate court may examine the record in the review of election contests in order to reach an independent conclusion, it merely determines whether the conclusions of law are warranted by the findings of fact, and it will not, as a general rule, disturb findings of fact on conflicting evidence unless such findings are manifestly wrong or against the weight of the evidence.

2015We review challenges to findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard; conclusions of law are reviewed de novo." Syl. pt. 4, Burgess v. Porterfield, 196 W.Va. 178 , 469 S.E.2d 114 (1996).

2015We review challenges to findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard; conclusions of law are reviewed de novo." Syl. pt. 4, Burgess v. Porterfield, 196 W.Va. 178 , 469 S.E.2d 114 (1996).

2014“As a general proposition, we review a circuit court’s rulings on a motion for a new trial under an abuse of discretion standard.”6 Although the ruling of a trial court in granting or denying a motion for a new trial is entitled to great respect and weight, the trial court’s ruling will be reversed on appeal [only] when it is clear that the trial court has acted under some misapprehension of the law or the evidence.7 6 Tennant v. Marion Health Care Found., Inc., 194 W.Va. 97, 104 , 459 S.E.2d 374, 381 (1995). 7 Syllabus Point 4, Sanders v. Georgia–Pacific Corp., 159 W.Va. 621 , 225 S.E.2d 218

2014“As a general proposition, we review a circuit court’s rulings on a motion for a new trial under an abuse of discretion standard.”6 Although the ruling of a trial court in granting or denying a motion for a new trial is entitled to great respect and weight, the trial court’s ruling will be reversed on appeal [only] when it is clear that the trial court has acted under some misapprehension of the law or the evidence.7 6 Tennant v. Marion Health Care Found., Inc., 194 W.Va. 97, 104 , 459 S.E.2d 374, 381 (1995). 7 Syllabus Point 4, Sanders v. Georgia–Pacific Corp., 159 W.Va. 621 , 225 S.E.2d 218

2006We review questions of law de novo. " Syllabus, Carr v. Hancock, 216 W.Va. 474 , 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004). *725 Syl. pt 1, Staton v. Staton, 218 W.Va. 201 , 624 S.E.2d 548 (2005).

2006We review questions of law de novo. " Syllabus, Carr v. Hancock, 216 W.Va. 474 , 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004). *725 Syl. pt 1, Staton v. Staton, 218 W.Va. 201 , 624 S.E.2d 548 (2005).

2004STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review governing the class certification issues raised in this case was set forth in Syllabus point 1 of In re West Virginia Rezulin Litigation, 214 W.Va. 52 , 585 S.E.2d 52 (2003), wherein we held that “[tjhis Court will review a circuit court’s order granting or denying a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [ (1998) ] under an abuse of discretion standard.” .With this standard in mind, we consider the issues presented in this appeal.

2004STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review governing the class certification issues raised in this case was set forth in Syllabus point 1 of In re West Virginia Rezulin Litigation, 214 W.Va. 52 , 585 S.E.2d 52 (2003), wherein we held that "[t]his Court will review a circuit court's order granting or denying a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [(1998)] under an abuse of discretion standard." With this standard in mind, we consider the issues presented in this appeal.

2004STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review in this case is found 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.

2004STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review in this case is found 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.

2004STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review governing the class certification issues raised in this case was set forth in Syllabus point 1 of In re West Virginia Rezulin Litigation, 214 W.Va. 52 , 585 S.E.2d 52 (2003), wherein we held that “[tjhis Court will review a circuit court’s order granting or denying a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [ (1998) ] under an abuse of discretion standard.” .With this standard in mind, we consider the issues presented in this appeal.

2004STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review governing the class certification issues raised in this case was set forth in Syllabus point 1 of In re West Virginia Rezulin Litigation, 214 W.Va. 52 , 585 S.E.2d 52 (2003), wherein we held that "[t]his Court will review a circuit court's order granting or denying a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [(1998)] under an abuse of discretion standard." With this standard in mind, we consider the issues presented in this appeal.

2003STANDARD OF REVIEW The issue of whether Appellee is liable for the medical debts of her husband presents a question of law, which we consider de novo: “ ‘ “Where the issue on appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Syllabus point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).’ Syllabus point 2, Coordinating Council for Independent Living, Inc. v. Palmer, 209 W.Va. 274 , 546 S.E.2d 454 (2001).” Syl. pt. 1, American Tower Corp. v. Common Council of City of Beckley, 21

2003STANDARD OF REVIEW The issue of whether Appellee is liable for the medical debts of her husband presents a question of law, which we consider de novo: “ ‘ “Where the issue on appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Syllabus point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).’ Syllabus point 2, Coordinating Council for Independent Living, Inc. v. Palmer, 209 W.Va. 274 , 546 S.E.2d 454 (2001).” Syl. pt. 1, American Tower Corp. v. Common Council of City of Beckley, 21

2003STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard for our review of an order granting summary judgment is well established. ‘“A circuit court’s entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.’ Syllabus point 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189 , 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994).” Syl. pt. 3, Tennant v. Smallwood, 211 W.Va. 703 , 568 S.E.2d 10 (2002).

2003STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard for our review of an order granting summary judgment is well established. ‘“A circuit court’s entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.’ Syllabus point 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189 , 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994).” Syl. pt. 3, Tennant v. Smallwood, 211 W.Va. 703 , 568 S.E.2d 10 (2002).

2003STANDARD OF REVIEW The issue of whether Appellee is liable for the medical debts of her husband presents a question of law, which we consider de novo: “ ‘ “Where the issue on appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Syllabus point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).’ Syllabus point 2, Coordinating Council for Independent Living, Inc. v. Palmer, 209 W.Va. 274 , 546 S.E.2d 454 (2001).” Syl. pt. 1, American Tower Corp. v. Common Council of City of Beckley, 21

2003STANDARD OF REVIEW The issue of whether Appellee is liable for the medical debts of her husband presents a question of law, which we consider de novo: “ ‘ “Where the issue on appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Syllabus point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).’ Syllabus point 2, Coordinating Council for Independent Living, Inc. v. Palmer, 209 W.Va. 274 , 546 S.E.2d 454 (2001).” Syl. pt. 1, American Tower Corp. v. Common Council of City of Beckley, 21

2002We have held that “[i]n a criminal case, the inquiry made of a jury on its voir dire is within the sound discretion of the trial court and not subject to review, except when the discretion is clearly abused.” Syl. pt. 2, State v. Beacraft, 126 W.Va. 895 , 30 S.E.2d 541 (1944).

2002We have held that “[i]n a criminal case, the inquiry made of a jury on its voir dire is within the sound discretion of the trial court and not subject to review, except when the discretion is clearly abused.” Syl. pt. 2, State v. Beacraft, 126 W.Va. 895 , 30 S.E.2d 541 (1944).

1999United Hospital Center, Inc. v. Bedell, 199 W.Va. 316 , 484 S.E.2d 199 (1997), where we held that “[a] writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent a simple abuse of discretion by a trial court.

1999United Hospital Center, Inc. v. Bedell, 199 W.Va. 316 , 484 S.E.2d 199 (1997), where we held that “[a] writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent a simple abuse of discretion by a trial court.