Criss v. Salvation Army Residences

13 Citing cases

  1. Martin v. W. Va. Labor Contr. Lic. Bd.

    199 W. Va. 613 (W. Va. 1997)   Cited 26 times
    Noting that because ยง 50-5-8(e) begins with the phrase " '[f]or purposes of appeal' โ€ฆ it appears that the legislature did not. intend magistrate court to be courts of limited record for any purpose other than appeal," a view "supported by the fact that the legislature also amended the statutory provisions pertaining to the method to be used by the circuit court in hearing appeals from magistrate court proceedings"

    W. Va. Code ยงยง 50-5-1 et seq. Also prior to 1994, this Court recognized that a magistrate court was not a court of record. See Truglio v. Julio, 174 W. Va. 66, 68, 322 S.E.2d 698, 700 (1984) ("Although the magistrate court is not a court of record, its final judgment is binding unless overturned on appeal."); Criss v. Salvation Army Residences, 173 W. Va. 634, 639 n. 9, 319 S.E.2d 403, 408 n. 9 (1984) (noting that magistrate court is not a court of record); State ex rel. O'Neill v. Gay, 169 W. Va. 16, 23, 285 S.E.2d 637, 641 (1981) (same). However, in 1994, the legislature amended certain provisions of the West Virginia Code pertaining to magistrate courts.

  2. Murphy v. Smallridge

    196 W. Va. 35 (W. Va. 1996)   Cited 74 times
    Directing that, on Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, court "constru[es] the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff"

    Moreover, it not only would punish the tenant for reporting violations "but also would stand as a warning to others that they dare not be so bold[.]" 397 F.2d at 701. In West Virginia, this Court first addressed the defense of retaliatory eviction in Criss v. Salvation Army Residences, 173 W. Va. 634, 319 S.E.2d 403 (1984). In Criss, one argument raised by the tenants was that W. Va. Code, 55-3A-1, et seq., "denies them an adequate remedy for the defense of retaliatory eviction."

  3. Vinson v. Hamilton

    854 P.2d 733 (Alaska 1993)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that action for possession brought under forcible entry and detainer statute was equitable in nature and that thus, parties did not have state constitutional right to jury trial

    The majority of state courts to address the issue reach the same conclusion. See Marquez-Luque v. Marquez, 192 Cal.App.3d 1513, 238 Cal.Rptr. 172 (App.), modified 193 Cal.App.3d 1093 (App. 1987); Hopkins v. Justice of the Peace Court No. 1, 342 A.2d 243 (Del.Super. 1975); Hill v. Levenson, 259 Ga. 395, 383 S.E.2d 110 (1989); North Sch. Congregate Housing v. Merrithew, 558 A.2d 1189 (Me. 1989); Carroll v. Housing Opportunities Comm'n, 306 Md. 515, 510 A.2d 540 (1986); Reiter v. Reiter, 240 Mont. 450, 784 P.2d 917 (1990); Martin v. Rogers, 42 Ohio App.3d 110, 536 N.E.2d 665 (1987); Criss v. Salvation Army Residences, 173 W. Va. 634, 319 S.E.2d 403 (1984). But see Lum v. Sun, 70 Haw. 288, 769 P.2d 1091 (1989); Alfour Inc. v. Light-foot, 123 N.J. Super. 1, 301 A.2d 197 (1973).

  4. Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout

    179 W. Va. 776 (W. Va. 1988)   Cited 5 times
    In Imperial Colliery Co., a landlord brought an eviction proceeding against a tenant who in response raised the defense of retaliatory eviction.

    After minimal discovery, Imperial moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted Imperial's motion in an amended judgment order dated October 8, 1986, relying principally upon Criss v. Salvation Army Residences, 173 W. Va. 634, 319 S.E.2d 403 (1984). The court concluded that the retaliation defense "must derive from, or in some respect be related to, exercise by the tenant of rights incident to his capacity as a `tenant'."

  5. Mercy Hous. Mgmt. Grp. v. Bermudez

    2024 CO 68 (Colo. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    ยถ80 West Virginia's highest state court acknowledged that if all tenants asserted their jury-trial right under the state's FED statute, that might thwart the statute's purpose of providing "a quick procedure to remove a hold-over tenant." Criss v. Salvation Army Residences, 319 S.E.2d 403, 407 (W.Va. 1984).

  6. NP Dodge Mgmt. v. Holcomb

    314 Neb. 748 (Neb. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    Even so, most state courts to consider the issue have followed the analytical path laid out in Pernell and have concluded that, under jury trial guarantees similar to ours, statutory actions by a landlord to recover possession of real property from a tenant are legal in nature and are thus triable to a jury. See, Ex Parte Moore , 880 So. 2d 1131 (Ala. 2003) ; Hill v. Levenson , 259 Ga. 395, 383 S.E.2d 110 (1989) ; N. Sch. Congregate Housing v. Merrithew , 558 A.2d 1189 (Me. 1989) ; Criss v. Salvation Army Residences , 173 W. Va. 634, 319 S.E.2d 403 (1984) ; Baldwin Sod Farms, Inc. v. Corrigan , 746 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. App. 1999). But see Vinson v. Hamilton , 854 P.2d 733 (Alaska 1993) (holding that action for possession brought under forcible entry and detainer statute was equitable in nature and that thus, parties did not have state constitutional right to jury trial).

  7. State ex Rel. Bay v. Marshall

    714 S.E.2d 331 (W. Va. 2011)   Cited 3 times
    In State ex rel. Bay v. Marshall, 227 W.Va. 679, 683-84, 714 S.E.2d 331, 335-36 (2011), we found that a court has the authority to review the circuit clerk's approval of indigency status and require a new waiver application if information becomes available indicating that the indigent person has previously undisclosed assets.

    " This statute must be read in conjunction with W. Va. Code ยง 55-3A-1 et seq., entitled "Remedies For Wrongful Occupation of Residential Rental Property" (hereinafter "Wrongful Occupation Act"). The Wrongful Occupation Act was passed in 1983 "to provide the landlord with a quick procedure to remove a hold-over tenant[.]" Criss v. Salvation Army Residences, 173 W. Va. 634, 638, 319 S.E.2d 403, 407 (1984). W. Va. Code ยง 55-3A-1(a) states:

  8. State ex Rel. West Virginia State Police v. Taylor

    201 W. Va. 554 (W. Va. 1997)   Cited 53 times

    That the Rules have the force and effect of a statute is unquestioned. Criss v. Salvation Army Residences, 173 W. Va. 634, 639, 319 S.E.2d 403, 408 (1984). Third, looking at the purpose of the federal regulation in question, we believe that 28 C.F.R. ยง 20.33 requires state "statutory" authority for criminal history record information dissemination for non-law enforcement purposes to guarantee that there are established governmental standards, controls, protections and oversight for such dissemination.

  9. State ex Rel. Allen v. Bedell

    193 W. Va. 32 (W. Va. 1994)   Cited 37 times
    In Bedell, the state offered results of a medical diagnostic blood test as evidence of Petitioner's, BAC. Like Newill, the Petitioner in Bedell claimed that the blood sample, taken for treatment and diagnostic purposes, should be suppressed because it was not taken in accordance with West Virginia statutory law.

    f prohibition back into proper focus. See State ex rel. Chafin v. Halbritter, 191 W. Va. 741, 448 S.E.2d 428 (1994) (granted prohibition because Court disagreed with trial court's ruling concerning "marital property"); McDowell County Bd. of Educ. v. Stephens, 191 W. Va. 711, 447 S.E.2d 912 (1994) (granted a rule to show cause to determine whether a lower court should have dismissed amended pleading); State ex rel. Scales v. Committee on Legal Ethics, 191 W. Va. 507, 446 S.E.2d 729 (1994) (granted prohibition to stop investigation of an attorney); State ex rel. Erickson v. Hill, 191 W. Va. 320, 445 S.E.2d 503 (1994) (granted prohibition to discovery order because it was abusive and oppressive); State ex rel. Spaulding v. Watt, 188 W. Va. 124, 423 S.E.2d 217 (1992) (prohibition granted to prevent defendant's release on bail); State ex rel. Strickland v. Daniels, 173 W. Va. 576, 318 S.E.2d 627 (1984) (granted writ to prohibit magistrate from removing only part of case to circuit court); Criss v. Salvation Army Residences, 173 W. Va. 634, 319 S.E.2d 403 (1984) (granted prohibition because tenant may be evicted before full appeal). The modern abuse of the writ of prohibition began in Woodall v. Laurita, 156 W. Va. 707, 712, 195 S.E.2d 717, 720 (1973), where a unanimous Court stated:

  10. State ex Rel. Chafin v. Halbritter

    191 W. Va. 741 (W. Va. 1994)   Cited 7 times

    We ruled in Strickland that the tenant was not adequately protected by the right to appeal "because she [tenant] could well be evicted before the appeal is fully heard." Strickland, 173 W. Va. at 580, 318 S.E.2d at 631; see also Criss v. Salvation Army Residences, 173 W. Va. 634, 640, 319 S.E.2d 403, 409 (1984) ("[t]he petitioners in the case before us are not fully protected by the right to appeal because they could be evicted before the appeal is heard"). After finding that prohibition would also save the parties time and money, we held prohibition to be an appropriate remedy.