Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Allstate Insurance v. Karl

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided October 29, 1993No. 21818PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MILLER, Justice;

We granted this original proceeding in prohibition in order to resolve certain procedural issues with regard to uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. The basic facts are not in dispute, and the ease involves critical legal questions that will substantially impact the underlying civil litigation. Thus, the issues fall within the prohibition standard set out in Syllabus Point 1 of Hinkle v. Black, 164 W.Va. 112, 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979), 1 which permits an original prohibition proceeding in this Court to correct substantial legal errors where the facts are undisputed and…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Hinkle v. BlackWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Bond v. Commercial Union Assur. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1981
  3. State Automobile Mutual Insurance v. YoulerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Shamblin v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1990
  5. American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. All American Bus Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1951

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Tennant v. SmallwoodWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Marshall v. SaseenWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Cales v. WillsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2002
  4. State ex rel. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. CanadyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Henry v. BenyoWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1998

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API