Cases pin-citing State v. General Daniel Morgan Post No. 548 · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing State v. General Daniel Morgan Post No. 548

Cases pin-citing State v. General Daniel Morgan Post No. 548

State v. General Daniel Morgan Post No. 548  ·  1959  ·  75 pinpoint citations from 60 cases, 11 distinct passages.

St. Joseph's Hospital of Buckhannon v. Stonewall Jackson Memorial Hospital Co., and West Virginia Health Care Authority  ·  2025-11-13  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
In re H.B., R.B., B.S., P.S., O.S., and I.S.  ·  2025-11-12  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
State of West Virginia v. Corbett Maurice Carter (Justice Bunn, dissenting)  ·  2025-04-21  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
Brandon Bickford v. Workforce West Virginia  ·  2023-11-01  ·  Int. Ct. of App. of W.Va.  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“[g]enerally the words of a statute are to be given their ordinary and familiar significance and meaning, and regard is to be had for their general 5 and proper use.”
Crystal D. Davis v. Workforce West Virginia  ·  2023-11-01  ·  Int. Ct. of App. of W.Va.  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“[g]enerally the words of a statute are to be given their ordinary and familiar significance and meaning, and regard is to be had for their general and proper use.”
State of West Virginia v. Charles Lee Finley  ·  2023-10-16  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
Justice Holdings, LLC v. Glade Springs Village Property Owners Association, Inc.  ·  2023-06-15  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
Everett Frazier, Commissioner, WV Division of Motor Vehicles v. Joseph D. Slye  ·  2022-02-24  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
In re G.M.  ·  2020-06-18  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
SER Everett Frazier, Commissioner of WV DMV v. Hon. William S. Thompson, Judge and Dylan Price  ·  2020-04-24  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
SER City of Bridgeport v. Hon. Christopher J. McCarthy, Judge  ·  2018-11-05  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
In Re I.M.K.  ·  2018-06-04  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
"When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute."
State of West Virginia v. Michael Keith Allman  ·  2018-04-05  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
"When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute."
Robert Matheny, Sheriff v. Lieutenant Gregory Scolapio  ·  2017-11-09  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
"When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute."
SER State of West Virginia v. Hon. David J. Sims, Judge  ·  2017-11-08  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
"When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute."
State of W. Va. Consolidated Public Retirement Board v. Ollie D. Hunting  ·  2017-10-19  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
Patrick D. Leggett v. EQT Production Co.  ·  2017-05-30  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“[I]n the interpretation of a statute, the legislative intention is the controlling factor; and the intention of the legislature is ascertained from the provisions of the statute by the application of sound and well established canons of construction.”
Patrick D. Leggett v. EQT Production Co.  ·  2017-05-26  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
State of West Virginia v. Steward Butler  ·  2017-05-09  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“Generally the words of a statute are to be given their ordinary and familiar significance and meaning[.]”
Domestic Violence Survivors' Support Group, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources  ·  2017-03-01  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
William Douglas Witten v. Joshua Butcher  ·  2016-11-30  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
Patrick D. and Katherine F. Leggett v. EQT Production Co.  ·  2016-11-17  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“[I]n the interpretation of a statute, the legislative intention is the controlling factor; and the intention of the legislature is ascertained from the provisions of the statute by the application of sound and well established canons of construction.”
Patricia S. Reed v. Joshua D. Beckett  ·  2016-10-26  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
James R. and Jamila J. Fleet v. Webber Springs Owners Assoc.  ·  2015-04-23  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
Allied Waste Services v. Public Service Commission of W. Va.  ·  2015-03-11  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
Gary L. Capriotti v. Jefferson County Planning Commission  ·  2015-02-26  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
SER W. Va. Secondary School Activities Commission v. Hon. David W. Hummel, Judge, etc.  ·  2015-02-26  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
United Hospital Center v. Cheryl Romano, Assessor Of Harrison County  ·  2014-05-29  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute [or rule] is clear and unambiguous and the [drafter’s] intent is plain, the statute [or rule] should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute [or rule].”
United Hospital Center v. Cheryl Romano, Assessor Of Harrison County, etc.  ·  2014-03-26  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute [or rule] is clear and unambiguous and the [drafter’s] intent is plain, the statute [or rule] should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute [or rule].”
Theresa L. Weimer v. Thomas Sanders, etc.  ·  2013-11-13  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
State of West Virginia v. Joseph Frederick Horn  ·  2013-09-26  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
University Commons Riverside Home Owners Ass'n v. University Commons Morgantown, LLC  ·  2013-03-28  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
Martin v. Hamblet  ·  2012-11-21  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
Hicks v. Mani  ·  2012-10-19  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
State v. Sulick  ·  2012-02-23  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
Ja Street & Associates v. Thd.  ·  2011-11-18  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
"When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute."
J.A. Street & Associates, Inc. v. Thundering Herd Development, Inc.  ·  2011-11-18  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
"When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute."
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Rutherford  ·  2011-11-17  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
"Generally the words of a statute are to be given their ordinary and familiar significance and meaning, and regard is to be had for their general and proper use."
Community Antenna Service, Inc. v. Charter Communications VI, LLC  ·  2011-06-23  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
Burgess v. Moore  ·  2009-10-09  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
Dan's Carworld, LLC v. Serian  ·  2009-05-13  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
Zimmerer v. Romano  ·  2009-04-30  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
Howell v. Goode  ·  2009-02-06  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
Raines Imports, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.  ·  2009-01-30  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board v. Weaver  ·  2008-10-10  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“Undefined words and terms used in a legislative enactment will be given their common, ordinary and accepted meaning.”
W. VA. CONSOL. PUB. RETIRE. BD. v. Weaver  ·  2008-10-10  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
"Undefined words and terms used in a legislative enactment will be given their common, ordinary and accepted meaning."
State Ex Rel. Tucker County Solid Waste Authority v. West Virginia Division of Labor  ·  2008-07-17  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
"Generally the words of a statute are to be given their ordinary and familiar significance and meaning, and regard is to be had for their general and proper use."
In Re Abbigail Faye B.  ·  2008-05-23  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
Soulsby v. Soulsby  ·  2008-04-04  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
Frymier v. Higher Education Policy Commission  ·  2007-10-12  ·  West Virginia Supreme Court  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 144 W. Va. at 137
"When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative *58 intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute."
Page 1 of 2   Next →