de novo standard in West Virginia

2023Va. 80, 83 , 736 S.E.2d 80, 83 (2012), we apply a de novo standard of review to questions of law arising in the context of decisions issued by the Board.

2023Va. 80, 83 , 736 S.E.2d 80, 83 (2012), we apply a de novo standard of review to questions of law arising in the context of decisions issued by the Board.

2026“Where the issue on an 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.

2026Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995) (“Where the issue on an 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.”).

2026Therefore, the petitioner contends that because J.M.B.’s testimony was “inherently unreliable,” there was “insufficient evidence to show that [he] touched the breast or buttocks of J.M.B.” 4 We apply a de novo standard of review when reviewing the circuit court’s denial of the petitioner’s motion for judgment of acquittal, see State v. Juntilla, 227 W.

2026This “Court applies a de novo standard of review to the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Juntilla, 227 W.

2026Furthermore, “[t]he Court applies a de novo standard of review to the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal based upon the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Juntilla, 227 W.Va. 492, 497 , 711 S.E.2d 562, 567 (2011) (citing State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 304 , 470 S.E.2d 613, 623 (1996)).

2026Furthermore, “[t]he Court applies a de novo standard of review to the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal based upon the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Juntilla, 227 W.Va. 492, 497 , 711 S.E.2d 562, 567 (2011) (citing State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 304 , 470 S.E.2d 613, 623 (1996)).

2010With respect to the constitutionality of the Racing Commission’s rule, we employ a de novo standard to review the circuit court’s decision: “[^Interpreting a statute or an administrative rule or regulation presents a purely legal question subject to de novo review.” Syllabus Point 1, Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Dep’t of West Virginia, 195 W.Va. 573 , 466 S.E.2d 424 (1995).

2010With respect to the constitutionality of the Racing Commission’s rule, we employ a de novo standard to review the circuit court’s decision: “[^Interpreting a statute or an administrative rule or regulation presents a purely legal question subject to de novo review.” Syllabus Point 1, Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Dep’t of West Virginia, 195 W.Va. 573 , 466 S.E.2d 424 (1995).

2022Va. 769, 777 , 679 S.E.2d 601, 609 (2009) (per curiam) (“[W]e apply a de novo standard of review to the circuit court’s interpretation of the contract.”).

2020Va. 769, 777 , 679 S.E.2d 601, 609 (2009) (“[W]e apply a de novo standard of review to [a] circuit court’s interpretation of [a] contract.”). 12 Syl.

2025“A de novo standard is applied by this Court in addressing the legal issues presented by a certified question from a federal district or appellate court.” Syllabus Point 1, Light v. Allstate Insurance Company, 203 W.

2025“A de novo standard is applied by this Court in addressing the legal issues presented by a certified question from a federal district or appellate court.” Syllabus point 1, Light v. Allstate Insurance Co., 203 W.

2022Pt. 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189 , 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994), and “[w]here the issue on an 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.” Syl.

2022Pt. 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189 , 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994), and “[w]here the issue on an 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.” Syl.

2018Finally, on appeal, this Court applies “a de novo standard of review to the grant or denial of a pre-verdict or post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law.” Gillingham v. Stephenson, 209 W.

2016STANDARD OF REVIEW In this appeal, the Commission calls upon this Court to review the circuit court’s denial of its pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, This Court applies “a de novo standard of review to the .,. denial of a pre- verdict ... motion for judgment as a matter of law.” Gillingham v. Stephenson, 209 W.Va. 741, 745 , 551 S.E.2d 663, 667 (2001).

2015In syllabus point one of Harrison County Commission v. Harrison County Assessor, 222 W.Va. 25 , 658 S.E.2d 555 (2008), this Court held: “A de novo standard of review applies to a circuit court’s decision to grant or deny a writ of mandamus.” Under this standard, “ “we consider de, nopo whether the legal prerequisites for mandamus relief are present.’ ” McComas v. Bd. of Educ. of Fayette Cty., 197 W.Va. 188, 193 , 475 S.E.2d 280, 285 (1996) (quoting State ex rel.

2015In syllabus point one of Harrison County Commission v. Harrison County Assessor, 222 W.Va. 25 , 658 S.E.2d 555 (2008), this Court held: “A de novo standard of review applies to a circuit court’s decision to grant or deny a writ of mandamus.” Under this standard, “ “we consider de, nopo whether the legal prerequisites for mandamus relief are present.’ ” McComas v. Bd. of Educ. of Fayette Cty., 197 W.Va. 188, 193 , 475 S.E.2d 280, 285 (1996) (quoting State ex rel.

2025Because it is generally a question of law, “we apply a de novo standard of review to [a] circuit court's interpretation of [a] contract.” Finch v. Inspectech, LLC, 229 W.

2022Because it is generally a question of law, “we apply a de novo standard of review to [a] circuit court’s interpretation of [a] contract.” Finch v. Inspectech, LLC, 229 W.

2014Bd. of Educ., 199 W.Va. 400, 404 , 484 S.E.2d 909, 913 (1996), modified on other grounds by Cathe A. v. Doddridge County Bd. Of Educ., 200 W.Va. 521 , 490 S.E.2d 340 (1997) (stating that ‘[b]ecause interpretations of the West Virginia Constitution, along with interpretations of statutes and rules, are primarily questions of law, we apply a de novo review'); cf. Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 436 , 121 S.Ct. 1678, 1685-86 , 149 L.Ed.2d 674 (2001) (providing that ‘courts of appeals should apply a de novo standard of review when passing on district courts’ d

2014Bd. of Educ., 199 W.Va. 400, 404 , 484 S.E.2d 909, 913 (1996), modified on other grounds by Cathe A. v. Doddridge County Bd. Of Educ., 200 W.Va. 521 , 490 S.E.2d 340 (1997) (stating that ‘[b]ecause interpretations of the West Virginia Constitution, along with interpretations of statutes and rules, are primarily questions of law, we apply a de novo review'); cf. Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 436 , 121 S.Ct. 1678, 1685-86 , 149 L.Ed.2d 674 (2001) (providing that ‘courts of appeals should apply a de novo standard of review when passing on district courts’ d

2019We have further held that, “‘[i]n determining the third factor, the existence of clear error as a matter of law, we will employ a de novo standard of review, as in matters in which purely legal issues are at issue.’ State ex rel Gessler v. Mazzone, 212 W.

2007“In determining the third factor, the existence of clear error as a matter of law, we will employ a de novo standard of review, as in matters in which purely legal issues are at issue.” State ex rel Gessler v. Mazzone, 212 W.Va. 368, 372 , 572 S.E.2d 891, 895 (2002).

2018“This Court applies a de novo standard of review to the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal based upon the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Juntilla, 227 W.Va. 492, 497 , 711 S.E.2d 562, 567 (2011) (citing State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 304 , 470 S.E.2d 613, 623 (1996)); accord State v. Minigh, 224 W.Va. 112, 124 , 680 S.E.2d 127, 139 (2009).

2018“This Court applies a de novo standard of review to the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal based upon the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Juntilla, 227 W.Va. 492, 497 , 711 S.E.2d 562, 567 (2011) (citing State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 304 , 470 S.E.2d 613, 623 (1996)); accord State v. Minigh, 224 W.Va. 112, 124 , 680 S.E.2d 127, 139 (2009).

2024Va. 770 , 461 S.E.2d 516 (1995). 2. “‘“Where the issue on an 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 1, State v. Paynter, 206 W.Va. 521 , 526 S.E.2d 43 (1999).” Syllabus Point 1, In re Charleston Gazette FOIA Request, 222 W.

2024Va. 770 , 461 S.E.2d 516 (1995). 2. “‘“Where the issue on an 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 1, State v. Paynter, 206 W.Va. 521 , 526 S.E.2d 43 (1999).” Syllabus Point 1, In re Charleston Gazette FOIA Request, 222 W.

2020Corp., 219 W.Va. 347, 352 , 633 S.E.2d 292, 297 (2006).

2020Corp., 219 W.Va. 347, 352 , 633 S.E.2d 292, 297 (2006).

2024STANDARD OF REVIEW The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (“SCAWV”) has held that “[w]here the issue on an 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.” Young v. State, 241 W.

2024Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995), that “[w]here the issue on an appeal . . . is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.” See also Young v. State, 241 W.

2009See Syllabus Point 1, Painter v. Peavij, 192 W.Va. 189 , 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994) (“A circuit court’s entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.”); Syllabus Point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995) (“Where the issue on an 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, Tennant v. Smallwood, 211 W.Va. 703 , 568 S.E.2d 10 (2002) (“Determination of the proper coverage of an insurance contract when the facts are not in dispute is a question of la

2009See Syllabus Point 1, Painter v. Peavij, 192 W.Va. 189 , 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994) (“A circuit court’s entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.”); Syllabus Point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995) (“Where the issue on an 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, Tennant v. Smallwood, 211 W.Va. 703 , 568 S.E.2d 10 (2002) (“Determination of the proper coverage of an insurance contract when the facts are not in dispute is a question of la

2026Disciplinary P. 3.15. 17 In lawyer disciplinary cases, we apply a de novo standard of review to questions concerning the appropriateness of sanctions; however, our review also requires that we give “respectful consideration” to the HPS’s recommended sanctions while exercising our “own independent judgment.” McCorkle, 192 W.

2024Va. 286, 289 , 452 S.E.2d 377, 380 (1994), this Court held: A de novo standard applies to a review of the adjudicatory record made before the Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar [currently, the Hearing Panel Subcommittee of 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 Committee’s recommendations while ultimately exercising its own independent judgment.

2024Assessor, 222 W.Va. 25 , 658 S.E.2d 555 (2008). “‘Where the issue on an 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 4, Harrison Cty.

2024Assessor, 222 W.Va. 25 , 658 S.E.2d 555 (2008). “‘Where the issue on an 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 4, Harrison Cty.

2007In syllabus point one of Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995), this Court explained: “Where the issue on an 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.” See also Ewing v. Board of Educ. of County of Summers, 202 W.Va. 228 , 503 S.E.2d 541 (1998); University of West Virginia Bd. of Trustees ex rel.

2007In syllabus point one of Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138 , 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995), this Court explained: “Where the issue on an 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.” See also Ewing v. Board of Educ. of County of Summers, 202 W.Va. 228 , 503 S.E.2d 541 (1998); University of West Virginia Bd. of Trustees ex rel.

2022Petitioner submits that “there is no reason that the driver of the Jeep could not have changed in Pennsylvania without Trooper Hoder seeing it.” He proposes that “[p]erhaps [petitioner] was in the Jeep during that Hancock County pursuit but someone else was driving, and that person got out in Pennsylvania, and then he only drove back to Brook County.” “[T]he Court applies a de novo standard of review to the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal based upon the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Jenner, 236 W.

2022Finally, petitioner contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, and subsequent motions for a new jury trial and a post-judgment verdict of acquittal. “[T]he Court applies a de novo standard of review to the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal based upon the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Jenner, 236 W.