Patricia L. Payne v. Samuel A. Gundy, No. 23057 (W. Va. February 15, 1996) (McHugh, C.J): 196 W. Va. 82, 468 S.E.2d 335:
Extending the prohibition against the discriminatory exercise of peremptory challenges to include gender, the Court held (1) it is a equal protection violation for a party to purposefully eliminate potential jurors through the use of peremptory challenges solely upon the basis of gender; (2) to establish a prima facie case of unlawful gender discrimination in the use of peremptory strikes, the moving party must demonstrate that (i) peremptory challenges have been used to eliminate potential jurors of the movant's gender and (ii) the circumstances raise an inference that peremptory challenges have been used purposefully to exclude jurors based solely on gender; and (3) the party accused of using peremptory strikes in a discriminatory manner may defeat a motion by providing credible, nondiscriminatory reasons for the exercise of peremptory challenges to remove potential jurors of the movant's gender, and such reasons need not rise to the level of a "for cause" challenge, but the trial court has discretion to conduct an evidentiary hearing where appropriate.
Ray O. Harrison v. Town of Eleanor, a municipal corporation, No. 21886 (W. Va. July 15, 1994) (Workman, J.): 191 W.Va. 611, 447 S.E.2d 546:
Reversing a judgment for a landowner who sued after a municipality revoked the issuance of building permits, the Court held that questions of law are the sole province of the court which cannot be delegated to the jury.
Patricia Davis, Administratrix of the Estate of Bryan M. Davis v. Dr. Hsinn-Hong Wang, Dr. William Neal, Dr. Brian Arthurs, West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc., and West Virginia Board of Regents, No. 19040 (W. Va. December 4, 1990) (Brotherton, J.): 184 W.Va. 222, 400 S.E.2d 230:
Where trial court refused to strike jurors who reluctantly indicated they would follow its instructions, even though they were antagonistic to the award of monetary damages for pain and suffering, the Court reversed, holding that a jury comprised of members who do not believe in a certain type of damages, yet reluctantly agree that they will follow law to the contrary, does not constitute an impartial jury.