State v. Bannister

23 Citing cases

  1. In re C.B.

    245 W. Va. 666 (W. Va. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    W. Va. Code, 49-5-10(a) [1977] [now 2001] [now codified as § 49-4-710 (2015)]." Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Bannister , 162 W. Va. 447, 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978). III. DISCUSSION

  2. State v. R. H

    166 W. Va. 280 (W. Va. 1980)   Cited 23 times
    In State v. R. H., 166 W. Va. 280, 288-89, 273 S.E.2d 578, 583-84 (1980), overruled on other grounds by State ex rel. Cook v. Helms, 170 W. Va. 200, 292 S.E.2d 610 (1981), this Court adopted "[t]he early classic definition of an ex post facto law [as] was set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 3 U.S. 386, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798)[.

    See W. Va. Code § 49-1-1(a) (Cum. Supp. 1978); State ex rel. S.J.C. v. Fox, 165 W. Va. 314, 268 S.E.2d 56 (1980); State v. D.W.C., 163 W. Va. 494, 256 S.E.2d 894 (1979); State v. Bannister, 162 W. Va. 447, 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978); State ex rel. Smith v. Scott, supra; State ex rel. Harris v. Calendine, 160 W. Va. 172, 233 S.E.2d 318, (1977). The legislature has recognized the importance of the Kent criteria by incorporating several of them into the 1978 juvenile law.

  3. In re Simmons

    129 B.R. 84 (Bankr. N.D.W. Va. 1991)

    Furthermore, it is generally accepted under West Virginia law that a newly-enacted statute will be presumed to operate prospectively, rather than retroactively, unless the legislative intent to apply retroactive effect to the statute is clearly indicated by the strong and imperative language of the statute or otherwise by necessary implication. W.Va.Code § 2-2-10(bb); State v. Bannister, 162 W.Va. 447, 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978); Shanholtz v. Monongahela Power Co., 165 W.Va. 305, 270 S.E.2d 178 (1980). Since there is no language or necessary implication that the 1989 version of W.Va.Code § 46-9-401 was intended by the legislature to operate retroactively, the Court does not find that the mere absence of a savings clause would necessitate such an interpretation.

  4. State v. Johnson

    No. 21-0683 (W. Va. Dec. 6, 2022)

    Further, an order transferring a juvenile to adult jurisdiction may only be set aside where the order is "clearly wrong or against the plain preponderance of the evidence[.]" Syl. Pt. 1, in part, State v. Bannister, 162 W.Va. 447, 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978).

  5. State v. Whetzel

    No. 12-0254 (W. Va. May. 17, 2013)

    W.Va. Code, 49-5-10(a) [1977]." Syl. pt. 1, State v. Bannister, 162 W. Va. 447, 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978). Upon our review of the record, we find that it is unnecessary to analyze the testimony of Lt. Harmison, because probable cause existed even without his testimony: The Sherriff's Department received an anonymous tip naming "Georgie W." as being involved in the robbery; Deborah Beckman, Wendy Beckman, and Amy Edwards each described their assailants to the court, and the court was able to witness both the petitioner and Mr. Derr; Wendy Beckman and Amy Edwards testified that one of the men went directly to the location of the lockbox and immediately left after retrieving the lockbox; Deborah Beckman testified that the petitioner was an employee of the Beckmans and that he would have known about the lockbox, where it was, and that it contained cash; Elizabeth McClain testified that she discovered the drawing depicting the layout of the Beckman's home in one of the petitioner's school books, and the drawing was admitted into evidence; and Ms. McClain also testified that around the 9th or

  6. State v. Colton B.

    No. 12-0641 (W. Va. Mar. 12, 2013)

    W. Va.Code, 49-5-10(a) [1977] [now 2001]." Syllabus Point 1, State v. Bannister, 162 W.Va. 447, 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978).Id. Upon our review, the Court finds no error in the circuit court's order transferring the matter to adult criminal jurisdiction.

  7. State v. Larry T

    226 W. Va. 74 (W. Va. 2010)   Cited 3 times

    W. Va. Code, 49-5-10(a) [1977] [now 2001]. Syllabus Point 1, State v. Bannister, 162 W. Va. 447, 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978). We have more recently clarified that "[w]here the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review."

  8. Findley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

    213 W. Va. 80 (W. Va. 2002)   Cited 121 times
    Finding that an amendment that the legislature described as a clarification intended to reverse a misinterpretation by the court was prospective because retroactive application would "extinguish any litigable rights that have accrued as a result of this Court's holding" in the case that prompted the amendment

    " Syl. pt. 1, Loveless v. State Workmen's Comp. Comm'r, 155 W. Va. 264, 184 S.E.2d 127 (1971). Accord Syl. pt. 2, Conley v. Workers' Comp. Div., 199 W. Va. 196, 483 S.E.2d 542 (1997); State v. Bannister, 162 W. Va. 447, 453, 250 S.E.2d 53, 56 (1978). Thus, "[t]he general rule is that statutes are construed to operate in the future only and are not given retroactive effect unless the legislature clearly expresses its intention to make them retroactive."

  9. In Re: James L. P. v. James L. P

    516 S.E.2d 15 (W. Va. 1999)   Cited 1 times

    1. "'Where the findings of fact and conclusions of law justifying an order transferring a juvenile proceeding to the criminal jurisdiction of the circuit court are clearly wrong or against the plain preponderance of the evidence, such findings of fact and conclusions of law must be reversed. W. Va. Code, 49-5-10(a) [1977] [now, 49-5-10(e) [1996]].' Syl. pt. 1, State v. Bannister, 162 W. Va. 447, 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978)." Syl. Pt. 1, In re H.J.D., 180 W. Va. 105, 375 S.E.2d 576 (1988).

  10. Matter of Steven William T

    499 S.E.2d 876 (W. Va. 1997)   Cited 9 times
    Finding juvenile's confession to murder to be invalid, in part, because the juvenile had been pressured to confess by a person in a lesbian relationship with the other murder suspect, the juvenile's foster mother, and finding the child's natural mother an inadequate advisor as the result of her lack of contact with the juvenile

    W. Va. Code, 49-5-10(a) [1977] [now, 49-5-10(e) [1996]]." Syl. pt. 1, State v. Bannister, 162 W. Va. 447, 250 S.E.2d 53 (1978). 180 W. Va. at 106, 375 S.E.2d at 577, syl. pt. 1.