Law v. Monongahela Power Co.
West Virginia Supreme Court
1DissentDavis, Justice
Appellees, Monongahela Power Company (hereinafter referred to as “Monongahela Power”), argued that the summary judgment issues in this case should not be considered because they were untimely filed. The majority opinion recognized that the case had a timeliness problem. Nevertheless, rather than affirming the summary judgment, the majority opinion established an unmanageable rule of law in order to address the merits of the summary judgment order. Due to the majority’s departure from precedent, I am compelled to dissent.
A longstanding legal maxim adhered to by this Court is that “[t]he law…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- State v. LaRockWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1996
- Lieving v. HadleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1992
- Powderidge Unit Owners Ass'n v. Highland Properties, Ltd.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1996
- Toler v. SheltonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1974
- James M.B. v. Carolyn M.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1995
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.