Preview:

Jarrett Printing v. Riley

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 1992 Term
No. 21477
JARRETT PRINTING COMPANY, Petitioner
v.
RONALD RILEY, as Director of the
Purchasing Division of the Department of
Administration of the State of West Virginia;
GASTON CAPERTON, as Governor of West Virginia;
and BJW PRINTING AND OFFICE SUPPLIES,
Respondents

WRIT OF MANDAMUS
WRIT DENIED
Submitted: December 2, 1992 Filed: December 9, 1992
Charles McElwee, Esquire Robinson & McElwee Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for the Petitioner
Jeffrey Matherly, Esquire Deputy Attorney General Charleston, West Virginia and Charles Lorensen, Esquire Mark Ferguson, Esquire George, Ferguson & Lorensen Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Respondents
JUSTICE NEELY delivered the Opinion of the Court.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. "Where a provision of a constitution is clear in its terms and of plain interpretation to any ordinary and reasonable mind, it should be applied and not construed." Syl. Pt. 3, State ex rel. Smith v. Gore, 150 W.Va. 71, 143
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/21477.html[7/1/2013 8:23:40 PM]
S.E.2d 791 (1965).
2.
"Courts are not concerned with the wisdom or expediencies of constitutional provisions, and the duty of the judiciary is merely to carry out the provisions of the plain language stated in the constitution." Syl. Pt. 3, State ex rel. Casey v. Pauley, 158 W. Va. 298, 210 S.E.2d 649 (1975).

3.
The plain and unambiguous meaning of W.Va. Const. Art. 6,

Download 21477.pdf

West Virginia Law