Helmick v. Potomac Edison Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• determining that the exclusion of defendant’s expert witness testimony was not clearly wrong and was within the “sound discretion of the trial court”
• noting also that the “deliberate intention” exception “is meant to deter the malicious employer, not to punish the stupid one”
• “To establish deliberate intention’ in an action under W.Va.Code § 23-4-2(c)(2)(ii) (1998), a plaintiff or cross-claimant must offer evidence to prove each of the five specific statutory requirements.”
• “To establish ‘deliberate intention’ in an action under W.Va. Code § 23–4–2(c)(2)(ii) (1983), a plaintiff or cross-claimant must offer evidence to prove each of the five specific statutory requirements.”
• “To establish ‘deliberate intention’ in an action under W.Va. Code § 23-4-2(c)(2)(ii) (1998), a plaintiff or cross-claimant must offer evidence to prove each of the five specific statutory requirements.”
• “The admissibility of testimony by an expert witness is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court’s decision will not be reversed unless it is clearly wrong.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).