W. Va. Code » §53-5-8. Equity of plaintiff to be shown by affidavit or otherwise; notice to adverse party; hearing after injunction awarded or denied; certification of
West Virginia Code

W. Va. Code § 53-5-8 (2026)

Equity of plaintiff to be shown by affidavit or otherwise; notice to adverse party; hearing after injunction awarded or denied; certification of questions; appeals

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WV-LEGwvlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
ARTICLE 5. INJUNCTIONS.

§53-5-8. Equity of plaintiff to be shown by affidavit or otherwise; notice to adverse party; hearing after injunction awarded or denied; certification of questions; appeals.

No injunction shall be awarded in vacation nor in court, in a case not ready for hearing, unless the court or judge be satisfied by affidavit or otherwise of the plaintiff's equity; and any court or judge may require that reasonable notice shall be given to the adverse party, or his attorney at law, or in fact, of the time and place of moving for it, before the injunction is awarded, if in the opinion of the court or judge it be proper that such notice should be given.

After an injunction is awarded or denied in any such case, at any time prior to final adjudication, any party to the proceedings, after reasonable notice to all other parties of record, which notice shall not in any case exceed five days, may move for a hearing on any particular issues or phases of the case which may properly be heard interlocutorily. Such hearing may, in the discretion of the court or judge, be had at the time the motion is made but shall be commenced within the ten days next thereafter, unless by consent of all parties appearing the hearing is continued until a later date. At any such hearing, in term time or in vacation, any party to the proceedings may be present in person or by counsel and may present such witnesses, cross-examine witnesses and offer such testimony and evidence as may be pertinent to the issues then before the court or judge, as the case may be. The court or judge, upon such hearing and the record in the case, shall render a decision without delay, and may continue or dismiss the injunction or may enlarge or modify the same, as may be warranted.

Questions may be certified and appeals may be taken in injunction proceedings as in any other cases in equity.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1984–2002 · leading case: Kessel v. Leavitt, 511 S.E.2d 720 (W. Va. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kessel v. Leavitt, 511 S.E.2d 720 (W. Va. 1998). · cites it 4× “W. Va.Code § 53-5-8 (1955) (Repl.Vol.1994) (emphasis added).”
Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Kaufman, 384 S.E.2d 173 (W. Va. 1989). · cites it 12× “This rule, however, for reasons deemed sufficient to the court, may be disregarded.”
State Ex Rel. United Mine Workers of Am., Local Union 1938 v. Waters, 489 S.E.2d 266 (W. Va. 1997). · cites it 4× “" To assure that there is adequate protection of due process rights in the issuance of preliminary injunctions, this Court stated in Ashland Oil : Although the effect of an ex parte order granting a preliminary injunction remains the same under W.Va.Code § 53-5-8, a court shall…”
Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Jefferson Cnty. Educ. Ass'n, 393 S.E.2d 653 (W. Va. 1990). · cites it 3× “In view of the evidence of record, we cannot say that the lower court abused its discretion in reaching this result. Accordingly, we find no error in the court’s decision to allow the Board to maintain a class action.”
Camden-Clark Mem'l Hosp. Corp. v. Turner, 575 S.E.2d 362 (W. Va. 2002). · cites it 2× “The Court went on to fashion a syllabus point that incorporated the desired changes: Although the effect of an ex parte order granting a preliminary injunction remains the same under W. Va.Code § 53-5-8, a court shall grant such an injunction only if it clearly appears from…”
Schupbach v. Newbrough, 313 S.E.2d 432 (W. Va. 1984). · cites it 2× “Rules of Civil Procedure, the Trial Court Rules for Courts of Record, W.Va.Code, 53-5-8, and were denied due process.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.