burden of showing error in West Virginia

2020Va. 709, 716 , 742 S.E.2d 125, 132 (2013) (“[a]n appellant must carry the burden of showing error in the judgment of which he complains.

2017See State v. Larry A.H., 230 W.Va. 709, 716 , 742 S.E.2d 125, 132 (2013)(“[a]n appellant must carry the burden of showing error in the judgment of which he complains.

2026Va. 158 , 150 S.E.2d 897 (1966) (“An appellant must carry the burden of showing error in the judgment of which he complains.

2025Va. 158 , 150 S.E.2d 897 (1966): An appellant must carry the burden of showing error in the judgment of which he complains.

2020Va. 387 , 599 S.E.2d 810 (2004), “[a]n appellant must carry the burden of showing error in the judgment of which he complains.

2020Moreover, as we held in Syllabus Point 2 of WV Dept. of Health & Human Resources Employees Federal Credit Union v. Tennant, 215 W.Va. 387 , 599 S.E.2d 810 (2004), “‘[a]n appellant must carry the burden of showing error in the judgment of which he complains.

2016In syllabus point two of Cart v. Marcum, 188 W.Va. 241 , 423 S.E.2d 644 (1992), we stated that “[t]he ‘discovery rule’ is generally applicable to all torts, unless there is a clear statutory prohibition of its application.” However, we have explained that “[o]nce the defendant shows that the plaintiff has not filed his or her complaint within the applicable statute of limitations, the plaintiff has the burden of showing an exception to the statute.” Worley, 220 W.Va. at 638 -39 n.7, 648 S.E.2d at 625 -26 n.7 (citing Syl.

2016In syllabus point two of Cart v. Marcum, 188 W.Va. 241 , 423 S.E.2d 644 (1992), we stated that “[t]he ‘discovery rule’ is generally applicable to all torts, unless there is a clear statutory prohibition of its application.” However, we have explained that “[o]nce the defendant shows that the plaintiff has not filed his or her complaint within the applicable statute of limitations, the plaintiff has the burden of showing an exception to the statute.” Worley, 220 W.Va. at 638 -39 n.7, 648 S.E.2d at 625 -26 n.7 (citing Syl.

2010Accord Syl. pt. 2, Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W.Va. 467 , 194 S.E.2d 657 (1973) ("On an appeal to this Court the appellant bears the burden of showing that there was error in the proceedings below resulting in the judgment of which he complains, all presumptions being in favor of the correctness of the proceedings and judgment in and of the trial court."); Syl. pt. 4, Pozzie v. Prather, 151 W.Va. 880 , 157 S.E.2d 625 (1967) ("An appellant or plaintiff in error must carry the burden of showing error in the judgment of which he complains.

2010Accord Syl. pt. 2, Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W.Va. 467 , 194 S.E.2d 657 (1973) ("On an appeal to this Court the appellant bears the burden of showing that there was error in the proceedings below resulting in the judgment of which he complains, all presumptions being in favor of the correctness of the proceedings and judgment in and of the trial court."); Syl. pt. 4, Pozzie v. Prather, 151 W.Va. 880 , 157 S.E.2d 625 (1967) ("An appellant or plaintiff in error must carry the burden of showing error in the judgment of which he complains.

2004Thus, as we have explained, her failure to object, specifically during her bench trial, constituted a further waiver to argue this issue on appeal. [11] See Syllabus Point 3 of Rollins v. Daraban, 145 W.Va. 178 , 113 S.E.2d 369 (1960) ("`An Appellate Court will not reverse the judgment or decree of an inferior court, unless error affirmatively appear on the face of the record; and such error will not be presumed, all presumptions being in favor of the judgment or decree.' Richardson v. Donehoo, 16 W.Va. 685 , Pt. 14 Syllabus."); see also Syllabus Point 4 of Rollins ("`A plaintiff in error assu

2004Thus, as we have explained, her failure to object, specifically during her bench trial, constituted a further waiver to argue this issue on appeal. [11] See Syllabus Point 3 of Rollins v. Daraban, 145 W.Va. 178 , 113 S.E.2d 369 (1960) ("`An Appellate Court will not reverse the judgment or decree of an inferior court, unless error affirmatively appear on the face of the record; and such error will not be presumed, all presumptions being in favor of the judgment or decree.' Richardson v. Donehoo, 16 W.Va. 685 , Pt. 14 Syllabus."); see also Syllabus Point 4 of Rollins ("`A plaintiff in error assu

2018Pt. 12, in part, State v. Surber, 228 W.Va. 621 , 723 S.E.2d 851 (2012) (“An appellant must carry the burden of showing error in the judgment of which he complains.”).

2018Pt. 12, in part, State v. Surber, 228 W.Va. 621 , 723 S.E.2d 851 (2012) (“An appellant must carry the burden of showing error in the judgment of which he complains.”).

2015Error will not be presumed, all presumptions being in favor of the correctness of the judgment.”); State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 302 , 470 S.E.2d 613, 621 (1996) (stating that “[a]lthough we liberally construe briefs in determining issues presented for review, issues which are not raised, and those mentioned only in passing but [which] are not supported with pertinent authority, are not considered on appeal.”); State Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Child Advocate Office v. Robert Morris N., 195 W.Va. 759, 765 , 466 S.E.2d 827, 833 (1995) (stating that “a skeletal ‘argument,’ really nothing mor

2015Error will not be presumed, all presumptions being in favor of the correctness of the judgment.”); State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 302 , 470 S.E.2d 613, 621 (1996) (stating that “[a]lthough we liberally construe briefs in determining issues presented for review, issues which are not raised, and those mentioned only in passing but [which] are not supported with pertinent authority, are not considered on appeal.”); State Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Child Advocate Office v. Robert Morris N., 195 W.Va. 759, 765 , 466 S.E.2d 827, 833 (1995) (stating that “a skeletal ‘argument,’ really nothing mor

2015Error will not be presumed, all presumptions being in favor of the correctness of the judgment.”); State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 302 , 470 S.E.2d 613, 621 (1996) (stating that “[a]lthough we liberally construe briefs in determining issues presented for review, issues which are not raised, and those mentioned only in passing but [which] are not supported with pertinent authority, are not considered on appeal.”); State Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Child Advocate Office v. Robert Morris N., 195 W.Va. 759, 765 , 466 S.E.2d 827, 833 (1995) (stating that “a skeletal ‘argument,’ really nothing mor

2015Error will not be presumed, all presumptions being in favor of the correctness of the judgment.”); State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 302 , 470 S.E.2d 613, 621 (1996) (stating that “[a]lthough we liberally construe briefs in determining issues presented for review, issues which are not raised, and those mentioned only in passing but [which] are not supported with pertinent authority, are not considered on appeal.”); State Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Child Advocate Office v. Robert Morris N., 195 W.Va. 759, 765 , 466 S.E.2d 827, 833 (1995) (stating that “a skeletal ‘argument,’ really nothing mor

2007See Syllabus Point 3, in part, Cart v. Marcum, 188 W.Va. 241 , 423 S.E.2d 644 (1992) ("[T]he `discovery rule' applies only when there is a strong showing by the plaintiff that some action by the defendant prevented the plaintiff from knowing of the wrong at the time of the injury."). [1] See generally Perdue v. Hess, 199 W.Va. 299 , 303 n. 7, 484 S.E.2d 182 , 186 n. 7 (1997), for a discussion of other legislatively-created exceptions to the general statute of limitations.

2007See Syllabus Point 3, in part, Cart v. Marcum, 188 W.Va. 241 , 423 S.E.2d 644 (1992) ("[T]he `discovery rule' applies only when there is a strong showing by the plaintiff that some action by the defendant prevented the plaintiff from knowing of the wrong at the time of the injury."). [1] See generally Perdue v. Hess, 199 W.Va. 299 , 303 n. 7, 484 S.E.2d 182 , 186 n. 7 (1997), for a discussion of other legislatively-created exceptions to the general statute of limitations.

2004Thus, as we have explained, her failure to object, specifically during her bench trial, constituted a further waiver to argue this issue on appeal. [11] See Syllabus Point 3 of Rollins v. Daraban, 145 W.Va. 178 , 113 S.E.2d 369 (1960) ("`An Appellate Court will not reverse the judgment or decree of an inferior court, unless error affirmatively appear on the face of the record; and such error will not be presumed, all presumptions being in favor of the judgment or decree.' Richardson v. Donehoo, 16 W.Va. 685 , Pt. 14 Syllabus."); see also Syllabus Point 4 of Rollins ("`A plaintiff in error assu

2004Thus, as we have explained, her failure to object, specifically during her bench trial, constituted a further waiver to argue this issue on appeal. [11] See Syllabus Point 3 of Rollins v. Daraban, 145 W.Va. 178 , 113 S.E.2d 369 (1960) ("`An Appellate Court will not reverse the judgment or decree of an inferior court, unless error affirmatively appear on the face of the record; and such error will not be presumed, all presumptions being in favor of the judgment or decree.' Richardson v. Donehoo, 16 W.Va. 685 , Pt. 14 Syllabus."); see also Syllabus Point 4 of Rollins ("`A plaintiff in error assu

2004Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion:... (3) improper venue.... [13] See also, Syllabus Point 6, Addair v. Bryant, 168 W.Va. 306 , 284 S.E.2d 374 (1981) ("Assignments of error that are not argued in the briefs on appeal may be deemed by this Court to be waived."); Sale ex rel.

2004Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion:... (3) improper venue.... [13] See also, Syllabus Point 6, Addair v. Bryant, 168 W.Va. 306 , 284 S.E.2d 374 (1981) ("Assignments of error that are not argued in the briefs on appeal may be deemed by this Court to be waived."); Sale ex rel.

1989Drake on Attachments and Garnishment, sect. 559.’ [Minotti, 94 W.Va. at 187,188 , 118 S.E. at 157 .] In affirming the trial judge’s decision to quash the attachment in Kellogg, we concluded in syllabus point 1: ‘An appellant must carry the burden of showing error in the judgment of which he complains.

1989Drake on Attachments and Garnishment, sect. 559.’ [Minotti, 94 W.Va. at 187,188 , 118 S.E. at 157 .] In affirming the trial judge’s decision to quash the attachment in Kellogg, we concluded in syllabus point 1: ‘An appellant must carry the burden of showing error in the judgment of which he complains.