State Ex Rel. Blankenship v. Richardson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding W. Va.Code § 23-4-6(n)(l) (1995) (Repl.Vol.1998) to satisfy constitutional requirement of equal protection even though eligibility criteria for PTD benefits is not uniform, but invalidating Legislature’s attempt to make such amendments effective immediately upon passage
• holding W. Va.Code § 23-4-6(n)(1) (1995) (Repl.Vol.1998) to satisfy constitutional requirement of equal protection even though eligibility criteria for PTD benefits is not uniform, but invalidating Legislature's attempt to make such amendments effective immediately upon passage
• holding W. Va.Code § 23-4-6(n)(l) (1995) (Repl.Vol.1998
• holding W. Va.Code § 23-4-6(n)(1) (1995) (Repl.Vol.1998
• where we held that it was a “substantive right to be considered” for workers’ compensation benefits
• “Though a workers’ compensation statute, or amendment thereto, may be construed to operate retroactively where mere procedure is involved, such a statute or amendment may not be so construed where, to do so, would impair a substantive right.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).