Opinion ID: 1266353
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: In syllabus point one of Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994), this Court stated that [a] circuit court's entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.  We have also consistently maintained that [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. Syl. Pt. 3, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Federal Ins. Co. of New York, 148 W.Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963). Further, in syllabus point four of Painter, we explained that [s]ummary judgment is appropriate where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, such as where the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case that it has the burden to prove. 192 W.Va. at 190, 451 S.E.2d at 756. In syllabus point three of Painter, we stated: The circuit court's function at the summary judgment stage is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter, but is to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Id., 451 S.E.2d at 756.