McVey v. Pritt

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. McClain

    247 W. Va. 423 (W. Va. 2022)   Cited 6 times
    In McClain, a collision resulted when a defendant's tractor-trailer clipped an oncoming tractor-trailer on a narrow road, causing the oncoming tractor-trailer to collide with a motorist.

    " McVey v. Pritt , 218 W. Va. 537, 540-41, 625 S.E.2d 299, 302-03 (2005).

  2. In re R.S.

    244 W. Va. 564 (W. Va. 2021)   Cited 9 times
    Acknowledging that "shall" and "must" are mandatory terms

    "It is not the prerogative of this Court to arbitrarily disregard the plain meaning of clearly written statutes." McVey v. Pritt , 218 W. Va. 537, 540, 625 S.E.2d 299, 302 (2005). This Court has noted that the Legislature routinely uses terms like "shall" when it intends to give a mandatory direction.

  3. State v. Thompson

    243 W. Va. 46 (W. Va. 2020)   Cited 1 times
    In Thompson, we discussed our prior cases under the Act and concluded that for a matter to be a contested case, "an administrative agency [must] hold a hearing and issue a decision."

    "It is not the prerogative of this Court to arbitrarily disregard the plain meaning of clearly written statutes." McVey v. Pritt , 218 W. Va. 537, 540, 625 S.E.2d 299, 302 (2005). Instead, "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."

  4. Associated Press v. Canterbury

    224 W. Va. 708 (W. Va. 2009)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a personal e-mail communication by a public official or public employee, which does not relate to the conduct of the public's business, is not a public record subject to disclosure" and surveying case law from other jurisdictions

    We have held on a number of occasions that "[t]his court `cannot rewrite [a] statute so as to provide relief . . . nor can we interpret the statute in a manner inconsistent with the plain meaning of the words.'" McVey v. Pritt, 218 W. Va. 537, 540-41, 625 S.E.2d 299, 302-03 (2005) (quoting VanKirk v. Young, 180 W. Va. 18, 20, 375 S.E.2d 196, 198 (1988)). Accord Dunlap v. Friedman's, Inc., 213 W. Va. 394, 398, 582 S.E.2d 841, 845 (2003) ("[T]his Court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the legislature and significantly rewrite the statute."