Cases

Harrison, J., delivered the opinion of the court. In this case, the plaintiff, an employee of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, has recovered a verdict and judgment for $8,000, damages for an injury alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant company. We are asked to set aside this judgment and grant a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by the ev

301 S.E.2d 798 (1983) The C & P TELEPHONE COMPANY OF W. VA. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF W. VA. No. 15661. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. March 29, 1983. *800 David B. Frost, Charleston, for petitioner. Joel B. Shifman, Daniel L. Frutchey and Marc E. Lewis, Legal Div., Public Service Com'n, Charleston, f

679 S.E.2d 223 (2008) Hugh M. CAPERTON, Harman Development Corporation, Harman Mining Corporation, and Sovereign Coal Sales, Inc., Plaintiffs Below, Appellees, v. A.T. MASSEY COAL COMPANY, INC., Elk Run Coal Company, Inc., Independence Coal Company, Inc., Marfork Coal Company, Inc., Performance Coal Company, and Massey Coal Sales Company, Inc., Defendants Below, Appellants. No. 33350. Supreme Court of

882 F.Supp. 549 (1995) Betty Ann JENKINS, Plaintiff, v. George McCOY, et al., Defendants. No. 3:90-0526. United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Huntington Division. April 13, 1995. *550 Robert W. Hamlin, Wood, Grimm & Delp, Huntington, WV, for plaintiff. *551 R. Carter El

488 N.E.2d 716 (1986) Paul A. BAILEY, Individually and As Administrator of the Estate of Mark Todd Bailey, Deceased, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Hugo E. MARTZ and David Chidester, Appellees-Defendants. No. 4-485A116. Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fourth District. February 10, 1986. Rehearing Denied April 4, 1986. *717

Haymond, Judge: This is a civil action instituted in A^ril 1963 in the Circuit Court of Cabell County, in which the plaintiffs, Mary R. Alexander and George A. Alexander, a married couple, seek to recover from the defendants, David G. Jennings, Murphy Goff and Dunn and Bradstreet, Inc., damages for personal injuries, medical expenses and loss of services, resulting from certain injuries sustained by the plaintiff Mary R. Ale

127 S.E.2d 742 (1962) George S. WALLACE et al. v. James W. ST. CLAIR et al. No. 12165. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Submitted September 19, 1962. Decided October 30, 1962. Rehearing Denied December 10, 1962. *745 Walter M. Parker, George S. Wallace, Jr., George S. Wallace Sr., Hunti

149 S.E.2d 213 (1966) Mary R. ALEXANDER et al. v. David G. JENNINGS et al. No. 12497. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Submitted April 26, 1966. Decided June 28, 1966. *215 Marshall, Harshbarger & St. Clair, Huntington, for appellants. Campbell, McNeer, Woods, Bagley & Emerson, C. F. Bagl

This is an original proceeding in prohibition, wherein George I. Rorrer seeks a writ prohibiting the enforcement of a suggestee execution issued by Carl S. Mynes, Justice of the Peace, Cabell County, based upon a judgment rendered against Rorrer and in favor of Ida Murphy. This Court awarded a rule, returnable September 3, 1941, against Mynes, Ida Murphy and John Bond, Constable. No answer has been made to the rule, and there has been no appearance by any of the respondents. Petitioner

Gregory, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The Honorable Thos. W. Ozlin, Chairman of the State Corporation Commission, prepared and filed an opinion in this case which, in our judgment, correctly decides it. We adopt that opinion as the opinion of the court. It is as follows: “The applicant, the Chesapeake Ferry Company, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the St

73 S.E.2d 18 (1952) STATE v. HOWARD. No. 10429. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Submitted September 17, 1952. Decided November 11, 1952. *21 Marcum & Gibson and J. J. N. Quinlan, Huntington, for plaintiff in error. John G. Fox, Atty. Gen., Thaddeus D. Kauffelt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward H. Gr

Johnson, Judge, delivered the opinion of the Coart: The first question presented is: Should the demurrer to the declaration have been sustained ? The counsel for plaintiff in error insists that the declaration was demurrable, because “the plaintiffs in then-declaration do not allege that the defendant or any of its corporate officers, had any notice that the road or place complain