consider factors in West Virginia

2019Second, the delegation provision must itself be valid, irrevocable and enforceable under general principles of state contract law.”). 19 Id. at 384 , 787 S.E.2d at 655 . 11 the arbitrability of the dispute.” Nowhere in the contract was the term “arbitrability” defined for the parties.20 Applying Rent-A-Center, West, we determined in Schumacher Homes II that because a delegation provision is a mini-arbitration agreement divisible from both the broader arbitration clause and the even broader contract in which the delegation provision and arbitration clause are found, a party must specifically ob

2019When an arbitration agreement contains a delegation provision, the trial court must first consider a challenge, under general principles of state law applicable to all contracts, that is directed at the validity, revocability or enforceability of the delegation provision itself.[23] We also explained the practical effect of this holding: 20 Id. 21 Id. at 389-90 , 787 S.E.2d. at 660-61 . 22 Id. 23 Id. at Syl.

1990The failure to do so constitutes neglect of duty on the part of the trial court, and if it appears on appeal that the rule has not been complied with, the case may be remanded for compliance.' Point 1 Syllabus, Commonwealth Tire Company v. Tri-State Tire Company, [ 156 W.Va. 351 ], 193 S.E.2d 544 [(1972)]." Accord Gorby v. Gorby, ___ W.Va. ___, 375 S.E.2d 424 (1988); Jones v. Jones, ___ W.Va. ___, 345 S.E.2d 313 (1986); Allen v. Allen, ___ W.Va. ___, 320 S.E.2d 112 (1984); Bills v. Bills, ___ W.Va. ___, 296 S.E.2d 348 (1982); Spence v. Spence, 167 W.Va. 704 , 280 S.E.2d 307 (1981); Pierce v. P

1990In the case of an action wherein there is no agreement between the parties and the relief demanded requires the court to consider such factors as are described in subdivisions one, two, three and four, subsection (c) of this section, if a consideration of factors only under said subdivisions one and two would result in an unequal division of marital property, and if an examination of the factors described in said subdivisions three and four produce a finding that a party (A) expended his or her efforts during the marriage in a manner which limited or decreased such party's income-earning abili

1990The failure to do so constitutes neglect of duty on the part of the trial court, and if it appears on appeal that the rule has not been complied with, the case may be remanded for compliance.' Point 1 Syllabus, Commonwealth Tire Company v. Tri-State Tire Company, [ 156 W.Va. 351 ], 193 S.E.2d 544 [(1972)]." Accord Gorby v. Gorby, ___ W.Va. ___, 375 S.E.2d 424 (1988); Jones v. Jones, ___ W.Va. ___, 345 S.E.2d 313 (1986); Allen v. Allen, ___ W.Va. ___, 320 S.E.2d 112 (1984); Bills v. Bills, ___ W.Va. ___, 296 S.E.2d 348 (1982); Spence v. Spence, 167 W.Va. 704 , 280 S.E.2d 307 (1981); Pierce v. P

1990The failure to do so constitutes neglect of duty on the part of the trial court, and if it appears on appeal that the rule has not been complied with, the case may be remanded for compliance.' Point 1 Syllabus, Commonwealth Tire Company v. Tri-State Tire Company, [ 156 W.Va. 351 ], 193 S.E.2d 544 [(1972)]." Accord Gorby v. Gorby, ___ W.Va. ___, 375 S.E.2d 424 (1988); Jones v. Jones, ___ W.Va. ___, 345 S.E.2d 313 (1986); Allen v. Allen, ___ W.Va. ___, 320 S.E.2d 112 (1984); Bills v. Bills, ___ W.Va. ___, 296 S.E.2d 348 (1982); Spence v. Spence, 167 W.Va. 704 , 280 S.E.2d 307 (1981); Pierce v. P

1990The failure to do so constitutes neglect of duty on the part of the trial court, and if it appears on appeal that the rule has not been complied with, the case may be remanded for compliance.' Point 1 Syllabus, Commonwealth Tire Company v. Tri-State Tire Company, [ 156 W.Va. 351 ], 193 S.E.2d 544 [(1972)]." Accord Gorby v. Gorby, ___ W.Va. ___, 375 S.E.2d 424 (1988); Jones v. Jones, ___ W.Va. ___, 345 S.E.2d 313 (1986); Allen v. Allen, ___ W.Va. ___, 320 S.E.2d 112 (1984); Bills v. Bills, ___ W.Va. ___, 296 S.E.2d 348 (1982); Spence v. Spence, 167 W.Va. 704 , 280 S.E.2d 307 (1981); Pierce v. P

1990In the case of an action wherein there is no agreement between the parties and the relief demanded requires the court to consider such factors as are described in subdivisions one, two, three and four, subsection (c) of this section, if a consideration of factors only under said subdivisions one and two would result in an unequal division of marital property, and if an examination of the factors described in said subdivisions three and four produce a finding that a party (A) expended his or her efforts during the marriage in a manner which limited or decreased such party's income-earning abili

1990In the case of an action wherein there is no agreement between the parties and the relief demanded requires the court to consider such factors as are described in subdivisions one, two, three and four, subsection (c) of this section, if a consideration of factors only under said subdivisions one and two would result in an unequal division of marital property, and if an examination of the factors described in said subdivisions three and four produce a finding that a party (A) expended his or her efforts during the marriage in a manner which limited or decreased such party's income-earning abili

1990The failure to do so constitutes neglect of duty on the part of the trial court, and if it appears on appeal that the rule has not been complied with, the case may be remanded for compliance.' Point 1 Syllabus, Commonwealth Tire Company v. Tri-State Tire Company, [ 156 W.Va. 351 ], 193 S.E.2d 544 [(1972)]." Accord Gorby v. Gorby, ___ W.Va. ___, 375 S.E.2d 424 (1988); Jones v. Jones, ___ W.Va. ___, 345 S.E.2d 313 (1986); Allen v. Allen, ___ W.Va. ___, 320 S.E.2d 112 (1984); Bills v. Bills, ___ W.Va. ___, 296 S.E.2d 348 (1982); Spence v. Spence, 167 W.Va. 704 , 280 S.E.2d 307 (1981); Pierce v. P

1990The failure to do so constitutes neglect of duty on the part of the trial court, and if it appears on appeal that the rule has not been complied with, the case may be remanded for compliance.' Point 1 Syllabus, Commonwealth Tire Company v. Tri-State Tire Company, [ 156 W.Va. 351 ], 193 S.E.2d 544 [(1972)]." Accord Gorby v. Gorby, ___ W.Va. ___, 375 S.E.2d 424 (1988); Jones v. Jones, ___ W.Va. ___, 345 S.E.2d 313 (1986); Allen v. Allen, ___ W.Va. ___, 320 S.E.2d 112 (1984); Bills v. Bills, ___ W.Va. ___, 296 S.E.2d 348 (1982); Spence v. Spence, 167 W.Va. 704 , 280 S.E.2d 307 (1981); Pierce v. P

1990The failure to do so constitutes neglect of duty on the part of the trial court, and if it appears on appeal that the rule has not been complied with, the case may be remanded for compliance.' Point 1 Syllabus, Commonwealth Tire Company v. Tri-State Tire Company, [ 156 W.Va. 351 ], 193 S.E.2d 544 [(1972)]." Accord Gorby v. Gorby, ___ W.Va. ___, 375 S.E.2d 424 (1988); Jones v. Jones, ___ W.Va. ___, 345 S.E.2d 313 (1986); Allen v. Allen, ___ W.Va. ___, 320 S.E.2d 112 (1984); Bills v. Bills, ___ W.Va. ___, 296 S.E.2d 348 (1982); Spence v. Spence, 167 W.Va. 704 , 280 S.E.2d 307 (1981); Pierce v. P

1990The failure to do so constitutes neglect of duty on the part of the trial court, and if it appears on appeal that the rule has not been complied with, the case may be remanded for compliance.' Point 1 Syllabus, Commonwealth Tire Company v. Tri-State Tire Company, [ 156 W.Va. 351 ], 193 S.E.2d 544 [(1972)]." Accord Gorby v. Gorby, ___ W.Va. ___, 375 S.E.2d 424 (1988); Jones v. Jones, ___ W.Va. ___, 345 S.E.2d 313 (1986); Allen v. Allen, ___ W.Va. ___, 320 S.E.2d 112 (1984); Bills v. Bills, ___ W.Va. ___, 296 S.E.2d 348 (1982); Spence v. Spence, 167 W.Va. 704 , 280 S.E.2d 307 (1981); Pierce v. P

1990The failure to do so constitutes neglect of duty on the part of the trial court, and if it appears on appeal that the rule has not been complied with, the case may be remanded for compliance.' Point 1 Syllabus, Commonwealth Tire Company v. Tri-State Tire Company, [ 156 W.Va. 351 ], 193 S.E.2d 544 [(1972)]." Accord Gorby v. Gorby, ___ W.Va. ___, 375 S.E.2d 424 (1988); Jones v. Jones, ___ W.Va. ___, 345 S.E.2d 313 (1986); Allen v. Allen, ___ W.Va. ___, 320 S.E.2d 112 (1984); Bills v. Bills, ___ W.Va. ___, 296 S.E.2d 348 (1982); Spence v. Spence, 167 W.Va. 704 , 280 S.E.2d 307 (1981); Pierce v. P

1990The failure to do so constitutes neglect of duty on the part of the trial court, and if it appears on appeal that the rule has not been complied with, the case may be remanded for compliance.' Point 1 Syllabus, Commonwealth Tire Company v. Tri-State Tire Company, [ 156 W.Va. 351 ], 193 S.E.2d 544 [(1972)]." Accord Gorby v. Gorby, ___ W.Va. ___, 375 S.E.2d 424 (1988); Jones v. Jones, ___ W.Va. ___, 345 S.E.2d 313 (1986); Allen v. Allen, ___ W.Va. ___, 320 S.E.2d 112 (1984); Bills v. Bills, ___ W.Va. ___, 296 S.E.2d 348 (1982); Spence v. Spence, 167 W.Va. 704 , 280 S.E.2d 307 (1981); Pierce v. P

1989Nonetheless, even in Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens Counsel, 483 U.S. 711 , 107 S.Ct. 3078 , 97 L.Ed.2d 585 (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that in many circumstances some contingency enhancement is appropriate. 11 We agree that when a plaintiff is litigating a case involving a significant issue of general application, where the likelihood of success is small and the economic value in terms either of money or of injunctive relief to the prevailing plaintiff is small, it is appropriate for a court to consider those factors in awarding attorneys’ fees and allow a contingency

1989Nonetheless, even in Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens Counsel, 483 U.S. 711 , 107 S.Ct. 3078 , 97 L.Ed.2d 585 (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that in many circumstances some contingency enhancement is appropriate. 11 We agree that when a plaintiff is litigating a case involving a significant issue of general application, where the likelihood of success is small and the economic value in terms either of money or of injunctive relief to the prevailing plaintiff is small, it is appropriate for a court to consider those factors in awarding attorneys’ fees and allow a contingency