State Ex Rel. Cavender v. McCarty

government significant there is a under federal interest at our state and constitutions. restricted, right Before that stake.11 a court should Thus, carefully examine the facts. if the circuit court on remand should find that in- Accordingly, we hold that when eval junctive relief is still warranted in the case injunction’s uating whether an content-neu us, before clearly the circuit court should set person’s tral a group’s restrictions on or forth in its support order the facts which speech public in a forum is constitutional imposed restrictions on HERE’S constitu- III, 7,§ to W. Const. art. Va. right speech. tional to free opposed evaluating a content-neutral stat ute, regulation, ordinance or freedom of Reversed and remanded. time,

speech provision, place, the standard analysis manner restrictions is RECHT, Judge, sitting by temporary Instead, sufficiently rigorous. a court assignment. must ensure that the content-neutral restrictions injunction speech burden no more than

necessary significant government serve

interest. us, before the case the circuit and,

court did not above use the standard thus, did not determine restrictions 479 S.E.2d 887 injunction preliminary its burdened no Virginia STATE of Otis speech public more forum than was Marguerite L. CAVENDER necessary significant government serve Cavender, Petitioners, Furthermore, previous interest. as we have ly indicated, the circuit did not decide gov whether areas like the hotel rooms are McCARTY, Judge Honorable Charles E. properties ernment that have not traditional County, the Circuit Roane Court of Bil ly debate, assembly been ly devoted to Fouty Fouty, Respon and Patricia thus warrant different considerations than dents. public

areas that are considered forum. No. 23652. Therefore, 8, we reverse the December Supreme Appeals Court 1995 order of the circuit court and remand Virginia. with directions for court to first 1, Submitted 1996. Oct. determine are at what forums issue and then apply appropriate standards for ana- Decided Nov. lyzing imposed by whether the restrictions injunction unconstitutionally re- group’s person’s speech. strict a very speech important right free Imperial (1990)).

11. This Court noted in State v. Market The circuit court made ing, 196 W.Va. 352 n. preventing "irreparable reference to harm" to (1996) 798 n. 8 Wheeling Park Commission at the December customary applied [t]he standard in West hearing. supra. See n. We note that preliminary injunction issuing a generally applies while the above standard when party seeking temporary relief issuing preliminary injunction, specif the more showing demonstrate a clear of a reason- ic standards for First Amendment issues set forth presence irreparable able likelihood of the Supreme apply the United States when harm; any appropriate absence other issuing injunction preliminary which affects law; remedy necessity of a balanc- constitutionally speech. protected ing hardship test[J County (citing Bd. Educ. v. Jefferson Jefferson Ass’n, County Educ. Scott, Spencer, for Petitioners. George M. Fouty, an Foutys’ property. Mr. McCarty, Judge, Ripley, Pro Charles E. mechanic, had no use for automotive Se. Mr. for meter box and sold it to Cavender Sims, Hall, A. Debra Tedeschi Sims David after, Cavender, using a lad- Mr. Soon $50. Hall, Elkins, Respondents. der, attempted to detach the meter box pole paraphernalia pole. from the The the fell, sustaining gave way, and Mr. Cavender PER CURIAM: injuries. According to the exhibits serious original proceeding1 prohibition, In this in- proceeding, Mr. filed in this Cavender petitioners, Otis L. Cavender and Mar- the $60,- range special damages in the curred Cavender, 12, 1996, challenge July guerite $70,000. 000 to County, Roane of the Circuit Court of instituted the In the Cavenders June ruling, Virginia, Pursuant to that the Thereafter, Foutys the underlying action. E. respondent, the Honorable Charles asserting summary judgment, moved for Billy Fouty McCarty, granted the motion of upon a mere licensee their Mr. Cavender was Fouty, respon- and Patricia also named as that, injured property when he was and dents, to conduct the therefore, duty him they protect to had no liability damages in the and under- property dangers arising on the from from lying personal injury That action is action. Agreeing with the Fou- existing conditions. Fouty, styled Action No. Cavender Civil summary judg- tys, judge granted the 93-C-123, County. petitioners Roane The appeal- summary judgment was ment. The contend the bifurcation ed, however, Fouty, Cavender v. issues, damage under the circumstances this Court S.E.2d forth, was in contravention of law herein set the action for trial. reversed and remanded and, thus, constituted an of discretion. abuse Cavender, Foutys In we indicated they asserting had no were correct petition This Court has before it the dangers duty protect to a licensee from aris- prohibition, response the of the trial writ of existing conditions. ing property on the Foutys judge, response of the and all the indicated, however, that, under the We also matters óf record. For the reasons stated circumstances, could have Mr. Cavender below, grants sought by the relief invitee, and, so, Foutys if the had been judge and orders that the trial the Cavenders ordinary keep duty care to to exercise bifurcating prohibited from the reasonably property in a safe maintain their damage issues. event, held, any this Court condition. Cavender, as a that Mr. Cavender’s status I an invitee was for a licensee or as n. 2 determine. 195 W.Va. indicate, Cavender, parties Otis L. As the at 739 n. and 3.2 buy Billy August, offered box, below, used, subsequent proceedings con- Fouty, During electrical meter pole Foutys filed a to Rule necting paraphernalia, attached to a motion resigned proper, was raise an issue Arthur M. Recht as action 1. The Honorable concerning following language Supreme Court of in the Caven- of the West Justice Appeals opinion: effective October 1996. The Honor- der Caperton, Governor of the State of able Gaston case, question buyer is whether a In this Judge Virginia, appointed of the First him part property of an isolated on a seller’s on that same date. Pursuant to Judicial Circuit transaction, buyer, initiated commercial order this Court on an administrative entered Except an invitee or a licensee. is considered 15, 1996, Judge assigned Recht October concerning proposed question who for buyer Virginia Supreme a member of the West sit as setup, appears there to be no remove commencing Appeals October Court of However, question of fact. material continuing until further order of this Court. reaching erred in the conclusion that reaching any buyer was not an invitee because ques- that in addition to the It should be noted drawing legitimate requires underlying 'the conclusion of whether bifurcation tion August this Court issued Virginia Rides Civil Court. On of the West respondents to the to show the issues of a rule directed Procedure bifurcate damages. Foutys why asserted that bi- cause relief should not be awarded. because, if the granted should furcation failed to establish a sub-

Cavenders II stantial amount of time would be saved parties expense original proceeding of obtain- could avoid This is an addition, testimony. VIII, ing expert medical prohibition. art. See W. Va. Const. that, Foutys 14; Va.Code, in view of the 3; asserted P. R.App. W. Va. W. 53- Cavender, injuries by Mr. serious sustained [1931], asserting seq. 1-1 et Rather than any possible prej- bifurcation would eliminate jurisdiction that the trial was without might adverse to the udice grant the motion to bifurcate the issues during liability phase of occur the otherwise liability damages, petitioners assert the litigation. July the trial the On judge’s that the trial contraven judge granted the motion to bifurcate and and, thus, tion of law constituted an abuse of memorandum of stated as follows letter analysis in Accordingly, discretion. our this opinion: syllabus point 1 of proceeding begins with 112, Black, v. 164 W.Va. 262 S.E.2d Hinkle liability in this case should 744 which observes: day a of the

take no more than Court’s significantly cut time and bifurcation could determining grant a rule whether to fees, attorney expert of witness the costs prohibition when a court to show cause fees, liability re- etc. Once the issue is jurisdiction, acting not in excess of its and the need of a trial for solved adequacy to the of this Court will look determined, can instruct an- the Court appeal remedies such as other available jury findings as to the other economy of effort and and to the over-all how such were sustained the lawyers money among litigants, the plaintiff.... courts; however, prohi- this Court will use discretionary way correct bition question sympathy the The defendants substantial, cut, legal errors only clear jury, hearing factor. Would a evidence plainly of a clear statuto- in contravention damages, regarding both constitutional, ry, or common law mandate against compelled the to award may independently of be resolved but defendants not based only any disputed in cases where null if facts sympathy? This concern would be probability that the trial presented high without there is a issues were completely of Mr. if the error is the additional evidence Cavender’s will be reversed pain. problems and medical not corrected advance. Kaufman, Amy also M. See State

Following ruling, petitioners filed that (1996); 251, syl. pt. 205 196 470 S.E.2d prohibition with this W.Va. petition for relief facts,’ prohibition proceed- ately jury this Court in a a before from the which is inferences ing. function. 98, clarification, (emphasis Nevertheless, at 740. 195 W.Va. as a matter of added). emphasis provided and suggest that language does not above of Cavender According petitioners, the trial to the proving petitioners, that Mr. in addition incorrectly imposed element of an additional invitee, prove a as matter Cavender was an concerning liability, upon the above based proof Fouty proposed that Mr. Caven- of law that Mr. prove requiring language, by that the detach the meter box der would be the one to was an invitee but Mr. Cavender that Rather, pole. paraphernalia from the Fouty proposed Mr. Cavender Mr. indicates, simply language this Court was detach the meter box and be the one to observing question detach of who was to pole. re- paraphernalia In his pole question property of fact from the however, judge, rather than con- sponse, firming relevancy that fact to the outcome and that requirement con- he added such litigation to determine. is for a property cerning who was to detach appropri- an issue is not pole, asserts such 230 (Mi

1, (1982). Canady, § State ex rel. U.S.F. & G. v. 194 735 See also 19 M.J. Trial 5 481, (1995); 8, 1991); (1991); syl. pt. § W.Va. 460 S.E.2d 677 chie 75 Am.Jur.2d Trial 140 Bedell, Silverstein, Lugar Virginia State ex rel. 194 Collins W.Va. Rules (Michie 1960); (1995); syl. pt. 460 S.E.2d 636 State ex rel. Civil Procedure 349 Troisi, Miller, Wright Doe v. & Practice Federal and Pro 2d, (1995); (1995); syl. pt. State ex rel. Smith v. cedure: Eunice A. Civil (1994). Annotation, Maynard, Eichelberger, Propriety 454 S.E.2d 46 Or dering Separate Liability Trials as to above, As stated moved for 4.2(b) Damages, Under Federal Rules to Rule Procedure, Involving Civil in Actions Per Rules Civil Procedure. Injury, Property Damage, sonal Death or provides: That rule (1986); McCorkle, A.L.R. Fed. C.R. Annotation, Separate Trial Issues Lia court, Separate trials. —The in further- Tort, bility Damages 85 A.L.R.2d prejudice, ance of convenience or avoid separate or when trials will be conducive to expedition economy, sepa- order claim, cross-claim, case, any

rate trial of supra, coun- The Bennett involved terclaim, claim, third-party any Haneys or of claim the that a title insurance claims, any company’s delay securing right-of-way issue or of number of cross-claims, counterclaims, property purchased by Haneys third-party the constitut claims, issues, ed the intentional always preserving or infliction of emotional invio- trial, day harm. by jury On the the Circuit Court late the of trial as declared County, Virginia, III, Pendleton sua by Article Section 13 of the West notice, sponte, and without bifurcated the Virginia given by Constitution or as a stat- under Rule ute of this State. 42(e). Following a verdict for the title petitioners assert that “there is noth- company upon liability, Haneys insurance the ing unique this case” and that cir- about no appealed. Noting that a trial court’s authori concerning litigation cumstances exist this 42(c) ty under Rule “is not unlimited” and every personal which do not exist in routine granted only that bifurcation should be when Therefore, injury according action. to the Court, Bennett, “clearly necessary,” this in petitioners, single promote judi- trial would reversed, holding that the bifurcation was convenience, economy any possi- cial indicated, particular, error. we in Ben prejudice ble to the could be avoided nett, that “adequately the trial court had not by cautionary jury. instructions to the On question bifurcating considered” the hand, the other the trial and the Fou- Haneys’ 748, action. 179 W.Va. at 372 above, tys rely upon grounds, discussed Importantly, syllabus point at 926. S.E.2d 6 support of the motion to bifurcate and of Bennett states: judge’s ruling further state moving separate Parties for trials of is- not an abuse discretion. pursuant Virginia sues to West Rule of 42(c), acting Civil Procedure or the court if previously this As Court has indicat sponte, provide justifi- sua sufficient ed, granting separate cation to establish for review that informed 42(c) generally to Rule rests within the dis discretion could have determined that the cretion of the trial court. State ex rel. State promote recognized bifurcation would Madden, Casualty Farm Fire & v. judicial goals economy, convenience of 155, 160, 721, (1994); W.Va. 451 S.E.2d parties, prejudice, and the avoidance of 3, syl. pt. Berry v. Nationwide Mutual Fire overriding being provision concern Co., 168, Insurance 181 W.Va. 381 S.E.2d 367 impartial litigants. of a fair and trial to all Warner, 742, (1989); Bennett 179 W.Va. (1988); 748, 920, Appalachian 372 S.E.2d Anderson v. See also State ex rel. Power Co. Ranson, McDonald, 4, 190 W.Va. 431 n. W.Va. (1993); syl. pt. encourage judicial economy.” 611 n. State 168 W.Va. 120, 282 Hott, 349, 424 at S.E.2d at 619.3 ex rel. Tinsman v. 188 W.Va.

S.E.2d 684 proceeding, In this a close examination of underlying the nature of the action reveals Tinsman, supra, plaintiffs a sex- are correct their asser- brought proceeding ual harassment action concerning tion that no circumstances exist prohibit in this the enforcement of a the action which do not exist in most routine pretrial granted order which the defendants uncomplicated personal injury actions. separate trial under Rule compelling There are litiga- no factors punitive damages. Indicating separate tion to indicate that trials are separate upon punitive damages justi- “clearly necessary” within context of cases,” “extraordinary fied Bowman, Rather, supra. Bennett and Court, 424 S.E.2d at uncomplicated action consists of an claim for Tinsman, prohibition awarded relief in personal injuries, where the sole impact concerning stated that the of evidence issue as to is whether Mr. Cavender punitive damages through could restricted suggested was a or an licensee invitee. As proper jury. instructions to the See Rule 106 Tinsman, supra, Rule 105 of the Virginia of the West Rules Evidence. Evidence, any impact Rules of concerning of the evidence the Cavenders’ Moreover, Barnes, in Bowman v. prejudicial to the (1981), involving 282 S.E.2d 613 can, doubt, Foutys, through no be restricted of an deaths automobile driver and a cautionary jury. instructions to the passenger crossing, at a railroad the adminis passenger brought trator of the an Moreover, deceased although this Court does not against company action the railroad suggest that a trial court’s discretion to or- administratrix of the deceased driver. The der trials or bifurcate issues under court, restricted, unduly Rule should be we on its own motion under Rule that, 42(c), emphasize prior our as decisions indi- separate concerning ordered trials cate, unitary generally preferable trials are Nevertheless, upon appeal by defendants. addition, separate ordering in over trials. passenger of the administrator deceased separate bifurcating trials issues under verdict, Court, from an adverse in 42(c), provide Rule the trial court “must suf- Bowman, ordering separate held that the justification ficient to establish review Bennett, Noting, error. that trials was as informed discretion could have deter- separate trials should not be ordered unless promote mined the bifurcation would Bowman, stated, “clearly necessary,” we recognized goals judicial economy, “generally acknowledged it is parties, of the and the avoidance convenience delay, expense single trial lessens the Bennett, Syl. pt. supra. prejudice!)]” separate inconvenience involved in trials[.]” Here, judge essentially determined at at 617. W.Va. that, prevail if the the issue of “Therefore, particular, this Court observed: concerning damages no witnesses R.C.P., 42(c), we conclude that Rule would be Such determination needed. separate multiple defen permits trials particularity contemplated in Ben- lacks the dants, light must be considered of the 42(c). Rule nett for relief under rules, joinder which are general policy of our above, therefore, designed promote Upon consolidation of issues all of the this Court 12,1992, July ruling expense opinion of the parties single trial to save is separate involved. The following language Trial have a trial of an issue found in 88 C.J.S. The noting: together especially appro- is worth trial of all issues priate law wherein the issues policy the number in an action at is the of the law to limit ft of trials as far as possible, separate complicated, replevin such as in a are not action, only exceptional case, granted cases. Even negligence are or the usual or where permitting under a statute issues, trials of basically the issues are the same. party has an absolute neither matters, we County pre-trial management re of Roane was in the Circuit Court and, thus, an the circuit court’s of a bifurcation constituted view contravention of law only of its considerable Accordingly, the relief motion for abuse of discretion. abuse awarded, Intercity Realty Co. Gib sought by discretion. See son, underlying 456- prohibited S.E.2d trial authority upon the limited to correct ordering separate trials Our action from only damages. the circuit is familiar: where the liability and plainly wrong order was tower court’s granted. Writ result) (or, case in this could resulted party prejudice aggrieved substantial RECHT, sitting by court, Judge, temporary we, appellate an interfere. should assignment. recent cases have made it clear Our to bifurcate vel non is a matter be decision

CLECKLEY, Justice, concurs. basis, must case-by-case on decided subject to an informed discretion of trial Justice, CLECKLEY, concurring: judge in See v. Hester each instance. Barlow Industries, Inc., 118, 479 S.E.2d age-old question re- This case raises the (1996) (“The rule on a Rule discretion to trial garding scope and breadth of the 42(b) motion, however, has limits and should in bifurcation cases under court’s discretion only after an be exercised examination 42(b) Rules of Civil case”) (Op. pg. individual case, ordinary Procedure. In the 637). Thus, the decision bifurcate majority’s opinion.1 h dissent from the court, only in the made after the trial exer appel- not that a reversal J-do believe discretion, weighs con of its the various cise management late court the area trial convenience, prejudice to siderations of Proper lightly undertaken. re- should be expedition, economy parties, re rulings judgment spect for the trial court sources. area is better an institu- in this standpoint, good but it also makes tional subject in a civil of bifurcation case judgment sense to leave intact the common involving separation men circuit court of those and women controversy generated heated has call. who are suited to make the level best among legal profes commentators and the separate the The decision to sure, To schools sion. there are two of however, damages, merely a mat- is not First, subject. thought on those who this management, it a decision ter of trial involves emphasize liberal “the time favor very impact influence the could well that theory saving,2 suggest in and also that there in- of trial. limited outcome these in should be no difference the eventual out stances, reasoning of the circuit Lis Robert come the case.” v. Packer carefully must more be reviewed. (3d Cir.1978), Hospital, 579 F.2d denied, Undoubtedly, it is well settled that cert. 439 U.S. 99 S.Ct. (1978). argument judge has in on L.Ed.2d 346 This is trial broad discretion (1963). ysis, a basis I L.Rev. 166 As the same reasons stated in State Harv. 1. For Bedell, conclusion, (1) they v. Allen their looked at two factors: J., concurring), (Cleckley, I believe jury finds if the case is bifurcated and the no inappropriate prohibition in this case. writ of is liability, present is no need evidence there more access members of the Bar believe that If (of course, unitary relating, damages in a trial necessary interlocutory in mat- Court is to this every presented be deliberation); the evidence of ters, argument they to the Halls should take their jury with its before commences Legislature request new the West (2) initially liability in where deter- cases subject. legislation on the plaintiff, in of the the defendants mined favor case; willingness an to settle the show increased study by Hans earlier Professor 2. An statistical again avoiding necessity introducing suggested an that routine once associate Zeisel average spent damages. time-consuming relating time bifurcation reduced evidence Callhan, twenty percent. & Zeisel trial about Savings: Anal- Split Trials and Time A Statistical rejected squarely equally impressive Supreme suggested States Zafiro group per- States, 534, 537, of scholars who advance that United 506 U.S. 113 S.Ct. injury may (1993) separation very 933, 937, 122 sonal cases the (citing L.Ed.2d 317 Rich Wright Marsh, well affect the 200, 209, 107 outcome.3 See 9 & ardson 481 U.S. S.Ct. Miller, 1702, 1708, Federal Practice and Procedure (1987)), unitary 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1995) (“But at 508 when it is seen promote efficiency and serve the inter split that the trial reduces more than half justice by avoiding est of the scandal and personal injury plaintiffs the cases which Indeed, inequity inconsistency. it is ordi successful, are it apparent that bifurcation nary expect separation and usual to no change makes a substantial in the nature of separa issues of itself’). jury Additionally, trial it is con- purposes tion of these for trial issues expense tended that bifurcation obviates the only runs counter to the intention preparing for trial until has been drafters, federal rule but is at odds with our found, may and that bifurcation act as a practice. While the trial court retains dis finding stimulus to settle cases after the call, cretion to make the bifurcation it is not liability. Corp., Stevenson v. General Motors prerogative his or her to influence the out 411, 416, 513 Pa. 521 A.2d personal injury litigation come of without Therefore, justification. sufficient scope purpose It would exceed the support court must the decision to bifurcate concurring opinion this to take sides explication demonstrating with an its exer point debate. The that I underscore is that cise of an informed discretion the circum the decision to the trial of particular stances of the case. important, affecting more convenience; than “it makes a substantial In determining whether to tri bifurcate a change in the nature of the trial itself.” al, circuit courts should be mindful of the Wright & Miller. It is for this reason that danger that evidence relevant to both issues goes beyond pale the bifurcation decision only be offered at one-half of the trial. management. significance mere This This hazard necessitates determination recognized by Advisory was the Federal Rules, saying

Committee on Civil while totally independent prior of each other encouraged “bifurcation should be where ex- permitting aptly This issue bifurcation. worth,” perience has demonstrated its Corp., addressed Brown v. General Motors separation cautioned also that Committee “is 67 Wash.2d 407 P.2d routinely Advisory not to be ordered.” Com- (1965),where it was said that: mittee’s Note to the 1966 Amendment of carefully should be cau- “[Bifurcation] 42(b), 39 F.R.D. 113. We adhere to tiously applied and be utilized position. policy We believe as matter juncture case and at a where informed Advisory the admonition Commit- judgment impels the court to conclude separation tee is sound and that of this kind application manifestly pro- of the rule will sparingly should be used. actually mote convenience avoid and/or prejudice. litigation Similarly, always Piecemeal is not to be American courts have ex- unitary encouraged. Particularly pressed preference a for trials in is this so in the personal injury litigation, both criminal and civil eases. As the United field of where may argued Hospital, a In Lis v. Robert Packer 579 F.2d at it be that this lends beneficial flexibility it is 824 n. stated that: to the strict rules of contributory negligence. At least it should be reasonably suspected "It can be recognized separate trials of degree negligence, contributory negli- of single differ from trial in more than gence plaintiff, conduct of the of other Note, reflected, Separate a Claim Issue form. Trial or presently many ju- parties with are of 42(b) ries, Pleading: in Modem the Federal finding as well as the of of Procedure, finding liability. purist probably Rules Civil 39 Minn. L.Rev. it of To of this, (1955)." put an end to but 760-61 would seem desirable to plaintiffs in the impact prejudicially are issues of verdicts, unequivocally of it is clear amount and the evidence generally interwoven that all must be row before “ducks” bearing upon respective com- issues is giant step potentially (Citations trial court takes the of mingled overlapping.” allowing influencing of a the outcome case omitted.) acknowledge Although I will bifurcation. also, Co., T York AT & 95 F.3d See obligation make cer- that courts have an (“Such (10th Cir.1996) must be decisions juries unfairly punish tain that do not defen- judi judicial efficiency, regard made with verdicts outrageous with and derelict dants resources, single cial and the likelihood that plaintiffs, point that this for I hasten out unduly prejudice party proceeding will either obligation against the must be balanced jury.”); Titan-C- or confuse the Saxion v. just plaintiffs adequate have ver- of (6th Inc., Manufacturing, 86 F.3d concerns, balancing these dicts. twin Cir.1996) (“A ordering decision knowingly negligently or tilt courts dependent on the facts and circumstances either is the the scale favor of side. Ours Inc., case.”); thinking engaging v. Hercules in creative each O’Dell task task, Cir.1990) (8th (“In 1194, 1202 being true to this exercising solomonizes. F.2d vigilant judges must forever to the built-in [to bifurcate] discretion courts should consid fail bias of bifurcation. Should trial court rights, preservation of constitutional er duty regard, in this then it becomes the clarity, judicial economy, the likelihood justice. this Court to correct the scales of possibilities inconsistent for con results Unfortunately, decision court’s fusion.”). Kimberly-Clark The court justification for bifurcation are wide Corp., Corp. v. River 131 F.R.D. James the mark. (N.D.Ga.1989), posted seven consid 608-609 making erations addressed (1) decision whether to bifurcate: wheth separately sought the issues to be tried

er different, (2) significantly

are whether (3) court, by jury are or the

issues triable discovery to a has been directed

whether (4) issues,

single trial all whether required each is substan evidence for (5) different, tially party whether one would STATE of West advantage gain some unfair S., BARBARA JEAN Plaintiff (6) trials, single issues whether a trial of all Below, Appellant, potential create the bias would (7) confusion, whether bifurcation possibility pretrial enhance or reduce S., Defendant STEPHEN LEO Citing, Helicop Martin v. Bell settlement. Below, Appellee. Co., (D.Col.1980); 85 F.R.D. ter Equitable v. The As Gonzalez-Marin Life No. 23326. (1st Society, F.2d surance Cir.1988). analysis, Kimberly- In the final Supreme Appeals my concern appropriately articulated Clark Virginia. paramount must re “the consideration Sept. Submitted 1996. litigants impartial a fair trial to all main through prejudice.” a balance of benefit and Nov. Decided (citations Kimberly-Clark, F.R.D.

omitted). ultimately persuaded by the data

If arewe strongly can suggests

Case Details

Case Name: State Ex Rel. Cavender v. McCarty

Court Name: West Virginia Supreme Court

Date Published: Nov 18, 1996

Citation: 479 S.E.2d 887

Docket Number: 23652

Court Abbreviation: W. Va.