Opinion ID: 4541454
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review a circuit court’s entry of summary judgment de novo. Syllabus Point 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994). “The question to be decided on a motion for summary judgment is whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and not how that issue should be determined.” Syllabus Point 5, Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co. v. Federal Ins. Co., 148 W.Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963). We have repeatedly held that under Rule 56(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law.” Syllabus Point 3, id. “Summary judgment is appropriate where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to 6 find for the nonmoving party[.]” Syllabus Point 4, in part, Painter, 192 W. Va. at 190, 451 S.E.2d at 756. Moreover, we have explained that: Roughly stated, a “genuine issue” for purposes of West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) is simply one half of a trialworthy issue, and a genuine issue does not arise unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for that party. The opposing half of a trialworthy issue is present where the nonmoving party can point to one or more disputed “material” facts. A material fact is one that has the capacity to sway the outcome of the litigation under the applicable law. Syllabus Point 5, Jividen v. Law, 194 W.Va. 705, 461 S.E.2d 451 (1995). Finally, we are cognizant that a plaintiff bears the burden of proof at a trial on the merits, and therefore “a plaintiff only is entitled to summary judgment where his evidence is so strong that he would be entitled to a directed verdict at trial.” Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W. Va. 52, 62 n.17, 459 S.E.2d 329, 339 n.17 (1995). We now examine the record and the parties’ arguments to assess whether the defendant presented any genuine issue of material fact, or whether inquiry concerning the facts is desirable to clarify the application of the law.