*1 require R. and to that a visitation on Dana promptly if it is shown that
plan prepared be Dana R.’s best
such visitation would to her well be-
interest and not detrimental L., supra. The
ing. In re Christina thereafter, should, full enter a
circuit court setting findings complete order forth its
and
of fact and conclusions of law. is, prohibition sought there-
The writ of
fore, denied. denied.
Writ
Albert Cable; Cable, Singly,
ble; Roger Linda Legal and Next Friend
and Guardian Brittany Cable, child; her infant White; White; Brian
Claude Chloe
Bullock; Angela Bullock; Patricia
Bullock; Timothy Bullock; Mary Hall;
Grady Hall; Joseph Hundley Aliene
Hundley, Below, Appellants, Petitioners HATFIELD,
Tennis Clerk of the Circuit County, Virginia,
Court of Below, Appellee,
Respondent Development Company,
Marrowbone Below, Appellee.
Intervenor
No. 24479.
Supreme Appeals of Court of Virginia. June 1998.
Submitted July
Decided
Concurring Dissenting Opinion of
Justice Stareher *2 by Rule 3 of the West Procedure.
Rules Civil I. *3 AND PROCEDURAL
FACTUAL HISTORY Cottrell, Miller, L. Cross L. Patrick Steven 14, 1993, July a chemical On or about Lanes, Appellants. for Laurel allegedly spilled into was substance Massie, Bolen, L. Hud- Richard J. Robert Virginia, Mingo County, due West Creek Bolen, dleston, Beatty, Copen, Porter & Develop- appellee Marrowbone to the acts of Jr., Persinger, Huntington, Howard M. Wil- thereby contaminating the Company,1 ment liamson, Develop- Appellee Marrowbone Lenore, supply in the area of drinking water Company. ment later, years Virginia. Nearly two on attorney L. Miller sent July Steven DAVIS, Justice: Chief Hatfield, to Tennis Clerk a letter Virgi- Mingo County, appeal an order of the Circuit Court appellants Sixteen nia, Enclosed by regular States mail. County dismissing United Circuit Court com- was a summons and to with the letter a writ of mandamus petition their com- plaintiffs named on the complaint plaint. The clerk to file a require the circuit who plaint were the same sixteen individuals by mail. The clerk refused to file submitted appellants appeal2 [here- to this up make complaint prospective as collectively Cable]. referred to as filing inafter tender a fee for each had failed to complaint The named “MARROWBONE was not plaintiff, and because COMPANY, by a civil ease information DEVELOPMENT accompanied d/b/a Marrow- [hereinafter TRIAD MINING”3 required Rule 3 of West statement as with the defendant. Also enclosed bone] Procedure. For the as Virginia Rules of Civil letter, complaint, was a opinion, summons and body of this explained reasons dollars, seventy ten- in the amount of a circuit court clerk check we conclude that when fee,4 filing and a check for five multiple dered as the complaint, which lists receives payable to the West Secre- dollars plaintiffs, complies with the West process on tary Officefor service of accompanied of State’s Rules of Procedure and is complaint was not filed § Marrowbone.5 The by W.Va.Code 59-1- by the fee mandated Instead, 11(a) (1996) the letter and the circuit clerk. (Repl.Vol.1997), the clerk must Furthermore, were returned to Cable’s we deter- other enclosures complaint. file the following nota- with the handwritten counsel that a circuit clerk is without mine “Judge Maynard does not the letter: accompanied not tion on file a that is multiple plaintiffs on law suits. You allow information statement completed civil case Marrowbone, was not a According appellee Jackie E. Dawson. As Ms. Dawson "SMC below, party proceedings Company merged she is not to the into Coal and Terminal proper party appeal. to this Development Company Decem- Marrowbone 1, 1995, of Marrowbone Devel- ber and the name Company, surviving corporation, opment supra 3. See note 1. Company. changed to SMC Coal Terminal 12, 1995, Later[,] the name was on December 59-l-ll(a) (1990) (Cum.Supp. 4. W.Va.Code Develop- again changed to Mountaineer Coal 1995), period during effect which was in corporate Company, which is the same ment attempted to file the time when counsel for Cable Company.” Development entity as Marrowbone required complaint, above-described consistency with the For ease of reference seventy filing fee to collect a dollar court clerks court, we will refer to final order of the circuit fee is action. The current to institute civil appellee as "Marrowbone.” seventy-five W.Va.Code 59-1- dollars. See 11(a) (1996) (Repl.Vol.1997). appeal appellants’ brief 2. On the case, (1984) (Repl.Vol. respect to this 5. See W.Va.Code in this Court with filed 1996). appellant, Cable listed an additional counsel for County Citing Duncan v. Tucker Bd. will to file individual suits with $70.00 need (Family) Educ., for each. Also need [sic] fee W.Va. Thanks, Eve.” case information sheet to file. writ The court further concluded that the attorney for received the returned The Cable respect of mandamus should not issue with 18, 1995, correspondence on after the application the one verified before it. The applicable of limita- running of the statute plaintiffs in court reasoned that because the made Apparently, tions. counsel for Cable underlying action failed to tender the attempt file the no second proper filing fee and include a civil case requisite filing fee and civil case informa- information statement statement, presumably tion since statute [did] R.Civ.P. Rule “the Petitioners of limitations had run. right sought legal have a clear to the relief September filed a “PE- On corresponding legal duty and there was no *4 RELIEF” TITION MANDAMUS FOR part on the of the Circuit Clerk to file the Hatfield, seeking compel Tennis Clerk of Moreover, proposed Complaint.” the circuit County, Mingo of [herein- Circuit Court explained that because the Circuit “Hatfield”], file after the aforementioned complaint office refused the and re- Clerk’s pro date the nunc tunc as of the unfiled, it there was no record indicat- turned original complaint by for was mailed counsel actually ing the date the was re- Although not Cable. Marrowbone was Thus, ceived. the court was unable issue respondent named to the mandamus it not writ of mandamus as could confirm action, subsequently it intervened in the mat- was, fact, that the received with- parties. upon agreement ter of all in the statute of limitations. Thereafter, Marrowbone and Hatfield each Additionally, opined the court that it would filed to the for mandamus demurrers pleading pro improper be to file the nunc § in accordance with W.Va.Code 56-4-36 tunc, authority by peti- as the submitted (1923) (Repl.Vol.1997). By order entered supported tioners the court’s July the Circuit Court of pro In the ab- enter an order nunc tunc. writ, County naming dismissed the several authority permitting of the court to sence First, grounds the circuit for its dismissal. tunc, pleading pro of a nunc allow the (1933) § court noted W. Va.Code 53-1-3 Finally, the the court declined to do so. (Repl.Vol.1994) requires application that an that, contrary circuit court found to Cable’s petition. on verified for writ of mandamus be (1985) § argument, W.Va.Code 55-2-18 requisite verification was sub- Because the (Repl.Vol.1994),7 provide equitable not an did only mitted on behalf of one of sixteen in this exception to the statute of limitations petitioners,6 it the court found that lacked explained that W.Va.Code jurisdiction application with case. The court to consider the timely respect remaining petitioners. requires 55-2-18 commence- to the fifteen bring petition However, initially a new action or suit reason of such 6. The filed without verifica- having after Marrowbone filed a demur- tion. for want of secu- cause been dismissed pointing petition was not veri- costs, rer fied, out that the rity any or reason of other cause for single verification on behalf of Brenda plead in bar of an action or which could not be Cable was submitted. suit, any of the or of the loss or destruction of papers in a former action or suit or records (1985) (Repl.Vol.1994) 7. W.Va.Code case, time; every such which was in due states: notwithstanding expiration of the time suit, including any If action or an action for suit must other- within which a new action or time, death, wrongful within due commenced may brought, been the same wise have against plaintiffs or more in the name of or one abatement, brought year one after such within defendants, abate as to one of them the or cause, such arrest dismissal or other or after inhabitant, return of no or his or her death decree, judgment loss or reversal of or such if, suit, marriage, includ- in an action or destruction, provisions after. The but not death, ing wrongful an action for commenced apply brought to actions this section shall not time, (or judgment within due or decree other occurring prior any person the death of proceedings) for the and further day July, nine hun- the first one thousand ground should be arrested or reversed on eighty-two. dred preclude which does not a new action or suit cause, same or if there be occasion to 642 Thus, de our review will be prerequisite appeal. an to extend-
ment of
action as
Dean,
195
Syl. pt.
after
novo.
Staten v.
limitations
the action
See
ing the statute of
(“The
(1995)
stan-
going
reasons
to W.Va.
has been dismissed for
not
appellate
dard
review a circuit court’s
merits of
Because this action
the suit.
reasoned,
filed,
through
extraordi-
granting
the court
order
relief
timely
not
novo.”).
nary
applicable.
It
writ of mandamus is de
55-2-18 was
W.Va.Code
A.L.,
Chrystal
Syl. pt.
order
also
R.M. v. Charlie
from this
that Cable
appeals.
(“Where
appeal
on an
from the
the issue
clearly
question
of law or
circuit court
II.
statute,
interpretation
we
involving an
of a
review.”).
apply
novo standard
a de
STANDARD OF REVIEW
review
We are asked to
the circuit
III.
petition for a writ
court’s dismissal of Cable’s
repeatedly
have
de
of mandamus. We
DISCUSSION
scribed
elements
mandamus
A.
relief as follows:
Applicability Demurrer
“A writ of
will
un
mandamus
not issue
*5
Petition Mandamus
for
(1)
three
clear
less
elements
coexist —
legal right
petitioner
reaching
in
to
relief
the
the
Before
the substantive is
(2)
sought;
legal duty
part
op
on
of
parties,
the
sues
the
we take this
raised
respondent
thing
peti
require
the
portunity
procedural
to do the
which the
to address
(3)
compel;
challenging
sufficiency
tioner
and
the ab
the
of
legal
seeks to
ments for
remedy.” Syl
adequate
petition
sence of another
for a writ of
In the
mandamus.
1,
Billy Ray
Point
ex rel.
judice,
labus
State
C.
case
and Hatfield
sub
Marrowbone
504,
Skaff, 190
438
legal sufficiency
847
the
of
challenged
W.Va.
S.E.2d
Cable’s
(1993);
Syllabus
State
Enc
RELIEF”
Point
ex rel.
FOR MANDAMUS
“PETITION
538, 170
City Wheeling,
pursuant
era v.
153 W.Va.
filing demurrers
to W. Va.Code
of
(1969).
(1923)
§
(Repl.Vol.1997). Although
367
7(c)
been
Rule
of
demurrer has
abolished
Dean,
Syl. pt.
195
Staten v.
Procedure,
the
Rules
of Civil
(1995).
appeal,
par-
S.E.2d 576
In this
the
appropriate
particular
demurrer was
in this
arguments
around
ties’
revolve
the first
instance.
mandamus,
required for
second elements
right
in
legal
petitioner
proceedings
are a
in
At
time of the
the lower
which
clear
the
the
court,
legal
part
respon-
Proce-
duty
and a
on the
of the
the West
Rules of Civil
Furthermore,
extraordinary
apply
of
dure
not
to
reme-
dent.
resolution
the issues
did
dies,
require
exception
three rules.9
presented
particular
this
ease
us
with
of
81(a)(5). Therefore,
provisions
apply the
of Rule 3 of the West
Rule
de-
W.Va.R.Civ.P.
regard to
Virginia Rules of
Procedure and W.Va. murrer was not abolished with
(1996)
59-1-11(a)
However,
(Repl.Vol.1997).8 extraordinary
§
remedies.
recent
Code
Procedure,
There have
factual
raised
amendments to the Rules of Civil
been no
issues
code,
supra
Although
§
See
59-
1996 versions of the
and because
note 4.
W.Va.Code
1990 and
1-11(a) (1990) (Cum.Supp.1995) is
easily
portion
the statute
specific
we can more
reference the
time,
por-
version,
that was
effect at the relevant
by referencing
of
the 1996
the statute
59-1-11(a)
§
tions of W.Va.Code
we must inter-
subsequent holding
our
will refer
discussion
appeal
pret
present
to resolve the
remain sub-
59-1-11(a).
§
version of
the 1996
amendments,
stantively unchanged by the 1996
except that
amounts of
the dollar
the relevant
5(b) (explaining
Rule
how ser-
W.Va.R.Civ.P.
Moreover,
changed.
fees have
the 1996
been
made);
pleadings
papers
vice
and other
is
of
59-1-11(a)
§of
version
includes subsection and
court”);
5(e) (defining "Filing
Rule
with the
designations,
simplifying
subdivision
thus
refer-
(pertaining
transcripts
Rule
or statements
specific portion
ence to
quently,
statute. Conse-
evidence)
apply
extraordinary
remedies
did
application W.Va.Code
because our
59-1-11(a)
regard
appeal.
at
to this
to both the
the time relevant
is
same
6,1998,
improperly exercised
April
Rule
circuit clerk
discretion
which became effective
81(a)(5)
argues
Moreover,
rule
in him.
that it
a new
not vested
Cable
repealed.
clerk of a
does
Virginia widely settled that the
expressly stating
“[t]he
that
govern
proce-
have discretion to determine the suffi-
of Civil Procedure
Rules
for,
of,
ciency, validity
legal
effect of
documents
application
dure for
and issuance
extraordinary
adopted
part
lawfully presented
filing.
the clerk
writs” was
the 1998 amendments. W.Va.R.Civ.P.
Second,
proper
that
Cable contends
71B(a). Consequently, under
the current
tendered, pursuant
filing fee was
to W.Va.
rules,
challenge
is not available to
demurrer
59-1-11(a) (1990) (Cum.Supp.1995).10
Code
mandamus,
other
petition
for a writ of
Therefore,
justifica-
the court clerk had no
Rather,
extraordinary remedy.
appro-
refusing
complaint.
tion for
to file
Cable
challenging
priate
legal
method of
suffi-
acknowledges
counties have im-
that several
extraordinary writ
ciency of a
for an
posed
requirement
separate filing fees
12(b)(6)
“fail-
a Rule
motion to dismiss for
multiple
involving
plaintiffs.
in lawsuits
upon
which
can be
ure
state
claim
relief
However,
those
he submits that
counties
12(e)
judg-
granted,”
“[m]otion
a Rule
general
rules
published
have
orders
local
pleadings”
on the
or a Rule 56 motion
ment
requirement. He
providing notice of the
summary
Wilfong,
judgment. Wilfong v.
County
general
had
complains
no
754,
645 pow they any A circuit administrative as if assert court’s action one ers, through circuit severally, in the are exercised the jointly, or which right to relief judge chief where there is more arising judge, in out of the or respect of alternative occurrence, transaction, judge, from the of than one circuit also derive or series same any ques- and if W.Va. Const. or occurrences Constitution. transactions VIII, (“Under per- law or to all these 6 the direction of the tion of fact common Article action”). Increasingly, justice supreme appeals, arise in the court sons will chief the join court, parties will an action as judge numerous of the circuit or the chief the litigation15 Rule 20. The mass judge authorized if more than one thereof there be burden, significant court, imposes that can result shall be the admin judge of circuit otherwise, of- financial and on circuit clerks’ all head of the circuit court and istrative However, circuit.”). Rules of fices. the West courts in Further magistrate regard to the Procedure are silent more, explained have that the we administra filing charged multiple parties to be when fee judge judge powers tive circuit chief join action. choose one contrary they are exist to the extent that this Court. Rut explicit direction from Nevertheless, parties ap to this Workman, ledge 175 W.Va. dispute the circuit court’s author peal do not (1985) (“At level, county S.E.2d filing multiple ity to assess additional fees in except to the that the circuit courts extend Indeéd, previously plaintiff cases. we have explicit Supreme given are direction stated: Appeals, power to control the Court of authority to re- Courts have inherent placed circuit is in the local affairs resources, necessary such suffi- quire judge judge.”). circuit the chief circuit operating expenses, funds work cient Consequently, judge we that a circuit hold space, parking space, supplies, and other judge than one chief circuit with more In order for a court to material items. authority have an judge, shall to enter power require use of inherent invoke its governing sepa when administrative order resources, must the court demonstrate filing may require fees rate reasonably necessary such resources are multiple filing plaintiff fees additional performance responsibilities of its until such as a statewide rule cases time justice. Although in the administration of multiple plaintiff governing fees must cautious not reach be- courts recognize promulgated. While we cases is branch, judicial yond power it is multi to assess the circuit court’s in- judiciary to be able to crucial multiple plaintiffs, we do ple filing fees for power reasonably neces- such as is voke authority imposes a corre not believe sary independent as an to maintain itself duty sponding part on the government. equal branch of our reject an otherwise valid clerk to ini filing fees are not Stephens, such additional Syl. pt. State ex rel. Lambert v. where tially tendered. *8 including litigation products, those in which claimants as: 15. Mass is defined prod- compensation the failure of the seek pending more actions in one or two or civil (a) perform resulting involving with dam- common uct to as intended more circuit courts: questions product property, in or age of law or fact mass accidents or other with itself overtones; (d) single catastrophic in a number events which personal injury or or without (b) involving people injured; com- of are or involving questions of law or fact in common "personal questions mon injury of law or fact in incurred numerous "economic loss” cases allegedly upon nu- mass torts” incurred asserting defect claims similar to claimants widely merous claimants in connection with damage property circumstances which those in products and their available mass-marketed fraud or warran- in the nature of consumer manufacture, use, design, implantation, in- including allega- grand ty on scale actions a (c) involving gestion exposure; common a defect without actual tions of the existence of damage questions "property of law or fact in injury. product failure or allegedly upon numerous mass torts" incurred XIX(c), T.C.R. for Trial Courts Rule for re- connection with claims claimants in Record. repair allegedly placement defective recently in pre Court established a case information statement the form This to, alia, Litigation “develop Mass Panel inter Supreme Appeals.” scribed Court of management added).17 implement case and trial (Emphasis This rule utilizes the methodologies litigation.” for mass Rule “shall,” See, mandatory. term and thus is XIX(b)(l), W.Va. T.C.R. for Trial Courts of Santucci, e.g., State ex rel. Kern v. panel fully operational (1997) (“The Record. This became use 1998. Due to its recent com usually of the word ‘shall’is considered to be mencement, panel obviously yet has not mandatory a word in enactments such as opportunity had the to address issues such as 18(b) Virginia the West Rules of [of presently the one before us. In the absence generally Procedure] Civil and has been con adoption proposed of a relevant rule depriving party required strued as to do litigation panel, the mass our decision (Ci something of discretion to do that act.” 59-l-ll(a). guided by § must be W.Va.Code omitted)). tations above, 59-l-ll(a) explained As W.Va.Code Therefore, we hold that Rule 3 of the requires, mandatory language, the circuit Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure re only seventy-five prior clerk to collect dollars quires, mandatory language, that a com filing complaint in a civil action other pleted civil case information statement ac than an action for divorce. We therefore company complaint submitted to the circuit hold that when a circuit court clerk receives filing. complet clerk for In the absence of a complaint, multiple plaintiffs, which lists statement, ed civil case information the clerk complies with the West Rules of authority complaint. is without to file the accompanied by Civil Procedure and is seventy-five filing dollar fee mandated by can nothing We locate the record of this 59-l-ll(a) (1996) (Repl.Vol W.Va.Code establishing complied case that Cable 1997), complaint. the clerk must file the mandatory requirement of Rule 3. Be- filed, complaint such a Once has been completed cause he failed to submit a case judge whom case has been complaint, information statement with his assigned must determine whether the re Consequently, could not be filed. quirements, any, if that have been adminis legal right Cable did not have a to the relief tratively judge established the chief sought petition he in his for mandamus be- Syllabus point that circuit under 3 of this fore the circuit court. As Hatfield did not opinion, are met filing such additional legal duty perform have a sought the act fees should be assessed.16 compelled by to be Cable’s for writ mandamus, and because Cable
C. legally sought, entitled to the relief the court dismissing petition. Case Statement did not err in Cable’s Information Although complaint against Cable’s Mar- D. accompanied by proper
rowbone was ini- fee, tial there defect Cable’s Exception to the Statute Limitations attempt to initiate the action that thwarted Finally, the circuit clerk’s argues file the com- that W.Va.Code plaint. Under Rule 3 of the (Repl.Vol.1994) provides Procedure, “[e]very equitable Rules Civil him exception with an to the stat accompanied by shall be a completed argument civil ute of limitations.18 We find this Observing argues Cable's that he was 18.Cable *9 also that a writ of mandamus Mingo County requir- without may properly require notice the a circuit clerk to file the ing multiple multiple fees in cases with previously pro submitted nunc tunc. plaintiffs, we note that this case the demonstrates supporting premise While Cable cites cases the need for uniform statewide local court rules in pro that an order can be entered nunc tunc to published form. something previously by make a record of done a order, entry McCoy without of an see Fisher, 447, (1951), quoted language currently 17. The 136 W.Va. 67 S.E.2d is found in 543 he 3(b). provides authority establishing pleading W.Va.R.Civ.P.Rule no that a
647 during pen- action is terminated § 55-2-18 a suit or without merit. W.Va.Code timely litigation upon ground dency of states: added)).19 (emphasis the merits.” going to suit, action including an any action or If Rule 3 of the West Pursuant death, within due wrongful commenced for Procedure, is civil action “[a] of Civil Rules time, or against name of one in the or by filing complaint with the commenced defendants, as to plaintiffs or abate more filed. never Cable’s was inhabitant, court.”20 by the return of no one of them Therefore, remedy provided W.Va. if, in marriage, or or byor his or her death him. unavailable suit, Code including action for an or an action death, due commenced unthin wrongful (or
time, IV. other and judgment or decree proceedings) further for CONCLUSION on a arrested or reversed
should be new ground preclude does not which reasons, that foregoing we find For cause, or if or suit for same action legally to the manda- was not entitled bring action or occasion a new there be sought he in the Circuit Court mus relief having of such been by suit reason cause County. affirm Consequently, we costs, security or for want of for dismissed 30,1996, dismissing July order of that court’s any could other cause which reason petition. Cable’s suit, or plead in of an action or not be bar Affirmed. any of the loss or destruction of in a action or suit papers or records former MAYNARD, J., time; case, disqualified. every
which was due such expiration time notwithstanding the of the O’BRIANT, Judge, sitting special n withinwhich must a new or suit action assignment. same brought, have been otherwise brought year within after such may be one STARCHER, Justice, part, concurring, in cause, abatement, dismissal other dissenting, part: judgment after such arrest reversal (Filed 1998) 16, decree, destruction, but or such loss or provisions The this section not after. circuit clerk My impression is that apply brought shall not actions matter, and plaintiffs’ in this didn’t file case- any person occurring prior to the death of back, there was papers not because sent the hun- July, one nine day of thousand first (“cover case information sheet no civil eighty-two. dred sheet”) enough of because there wasn’t —but added). terms, By this (Emphasis ruled, agree, its own I filing fee. We have an applies only code when section of the wrong about the fees. the clerk commenced, timely and then subse- action is information respect to civil ease With contemplat- one quently dismissed for of the attor- sheet, could called the the clerk have See, e.g., Taylor ed v. State Work- reasons. sheet be ney requested that a cover Comm’r, Comp. 152 W.Va. men’s faxed, approved in Plum v. Camden- as we (“Code, 55- S.E.2d Foundation, Inc., 201 W.Va. Clark Court, 2-18, provides this as construed applicable statute one-year extension action, picay- So, majority opinion holds that instituting a suit or of limitations adequate attorney court, oversight an such une in a trial when timely commenced Moreover, Comp. Although Taylor v. Workmen's pro State may tunc. because be filed nunc Comm'r, court clerk we conclude that (1969), of W.Va. discussed an older version 617 Code due to file Cable’s without procedural 55-2-18, only version differs current deficiencies, we need not address terms expressly within its it includes in that Thus, factually we save it for a more issue. wrongful death. causes of action for appropriate case. *10 supra note 14.
20. See grounds deny people right their
adjudication legal I no of their claims. see
compelling impose for us to such a reason people.
harsh result innocent saying plaintiffs in we are to the
What case, essence, “tough luck.”
instant is: avoid, phrase that we in the
This is a should
judicial repertoire, equitable when more al-
ternatives available.
Moreover, even if the decision to bar the using in the instant case from one, adopted
courts was a fair the rule pro se
majority is too broad. about What
litigants in- who don’t know about civil case attorney’s
formation if an sheets? What sec-
retary forgets put the sheet in the envel-
ope?
It explicitly would be better indicate appropriate equitable may relief circumstances,
available these sorts of unnecessarily
rather than to issue broad may
rules that have draconian results people innocent we will have to correct —that
in future cases.
I therefore concur as fees issue and
dissent as to the civil case information sheet
issue.
Marjorie DANIEL, E. Flicka Daniel
Graves and Charlotte Daniel Susan
Thomas, Below, Appellees, Plaintiffs BANK,
UNITED NATIONAL a National
Banking Association, Defendant
Below, Appellant.
No. 24643.
Supreme Appeals Court of Virginia. May
Submitted
Decided
notes
Now, however,
requests
it was mailed.
stamped
date it
be
the
petition for
that the
Marrowbone notes that Cable’s
court.
sought
compel
received the circuit
to
the
writ of mandamus
response
interpretation.’ Syl.
In
the rules of
Pt.
tations.12
defendant’s mo-
Elder,
571, 165
ground
that the action
v.
tion
dismiss on
State
(1968).”);
Servs.,
Syl. pt.
Temp.
was not commenced within the statute of
Personnel
Personnel,
limitations,
plaintiff argued
Virginia
that it
Inc. v.
Div.
Bd.,
duty
provide
Licensing
circuit clerk to
a Div. Labor
of the
Contractor
(1996) (“When
proper
that
bond and
the clerk’s failure W.Va.