Top Stories from the State Dept homepage.
This link will open in a new browser window.Official Web site for the Department of Defense
This link will open in a new browser window.The latest news from the U.S. Department of Education
Information about recent WV Supreme Court cases and opinions involving civil matters.
Posted today were summaries of each of the 66 opinions issued in the January 2008 term of court, comprising 26 signed opinions and 40 per curiam opinions.
CASES HELD OVER: Four cases submitted for decision in the January 2008 term of court were held over, with an opinion to issue during the September term. Those cases are: (1) SAVARESE v. ALLSTATE INS. CO., No. 33443(Argued January 23, 2008); (2) RASHID v. TARAKJI, No. 33596 (Argued April 1, 2008); (3) STATE EX REL. HATFIELD v. PAINTER, No. 33668 (Argued April 16, 2008); (4) LAWYER DISC. BD. v. WILLIAM H. DUTY, No. 33069, (Original opinion withdrawn when the Court granted a petition for rehearing. The case was re-argued on May 25, 2008. Thereafter, Chief Justice Maynard recused himself from the case, and the case will be set for a second re-argument in the September term.)
IN RE: SUMMER D., No. 33386 (Per Curiam)(February 26, 2008). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Brooke County that denied a motion by the guardian ad litem to amend an abuse & neglect petition. Holding that the circuit court erred in denying the motion to amend, because reasonable cause to believe additional abuse and neglect is imminent, but not encompassed by the allegations of the petition. Holding that the record is insufficient to determine the ability of the father to parent the child. Remanding for further proceedings.
IN RE: ABBIGAIL FAY B., No. 33716 (DAVIS, J.)(May 23, 2008). Affirming an order of the Circuit Court of Cabell County that denied an infant guardianship petition sought by the maternal grandparents, and returned the child's custody to her biological parents. Concluding that the circuit court properly determined that the appellants did not carry their burden of proving that the child was abused or neglected and failed to show that the biological mother was not a fit parent. Clarifying the circumstances in which a guardian may be appointed, and addressing aspects of Family Court Rule 48a, wherein allegations of abuse and neglect arise in family court and are subsequently transferred to circuit court for disposition.
FAUBLE v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO., et al., No. 33667 (Per Curiam)(Maynard, C.J., dissenting)(June 16, 2008). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County that denied attorney fees sought by policyholders in connection with litigation to reduce the amount of reimbursement that their insurance company sought from them. Holding that an award of attorney fees is appropriate because of the litigation obligation imposed upon the policyholders, but that there is no evidence to support the amount sought, and remanding for further proceedings to determine the amount of reasonable attorney fees, including the fees and costs associated with the appeal.
MESSER v. HUNTINGTON ANESTHESIA GROUP, INC., et al., No. 33663 (Per Curiam)(June 26, 2008). Vacating an order of the Circuit Court of Cabell County that granted summary judgment to defendants, following remand in MESSER I, See 218 W.Va. 4, 620 S.E.2d 144 (2005). Limiting discussion to the sole issue of whether a valid settlement agreement was reached following court-annexed mediation. Given the circumstances of the case, the record as a whole demonstrates that the mediated settlement was the result of a meeting of the minds, that counsel for the defendants had apparent authority to act on their behalf, with no showing by the defendants otherwise, and that counsel's reliance on one spokesperson for the defendants was reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, the mediated settlement should have been enforced, and the plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable award of attorney fees, to be determined upon remand.
WATSON v. SUNSET ADDITION PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., No. 33338 (STARCHER, J.)(MAYNARD, C.J., disqualified)(Judge James Matish, by temporary assignment)(March 19, 2008). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Logan County that held a property owner's association in contempt for failing to install a sewage treatment plant for which they were unable to obtain a permit. Holding that ordinarily a party may not be held in contempt for failure to perform an act that the party is unable to legally perform, if the evidence establishes that the party's inability to legally perform the act is not the party's fault. Remanding for further proceedings, and directing that a separate administrative appeal related to the denial of the permit be transferred and consolidated with the action giving rise to the contempt order.
HOOVER v. MORAN, No. 33460 (Per Curiam)(March 14, 2008). Granting mixed relief from an order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County that dismissed an action that sought recovery on an unwritten promise to pay a percentage of profits from the sale of a coal company. Holding that the complaint adequately set forth a cause of action against the defendant in his individual capacity. Further holding that even assuming the statute of frauds applies to this type of arrangement, the doctrine of promissory estoppel precludes dismissal, under the facts set out in the complaint. Rejecting the defendant's cross-assignment of error, and holding that the circuit court properly reinstated the action under Rule 41(b), where neither the plaintiff nor plaintiff's counsel received notice of the dismissal.
CAPERTON, et al. v. A.T. MASSEY COAL CO., et al., No. 33350 (DAVIS, J.)(Maynard, C.J., disqualified)(Starcher, J., disqualified)(Judge Donald Cookman and Judge Fred Fox sitting by temporary assignment)(Albright, J., and Judge Cookman dissenting)(Benjamin, A.C.J., and Judge Fox concurring)(April 3, 2008). In an opinion issued upon rehearing, reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Boone County that denied defendants' post-trial motions in response to the entry of judgment of more than $50 million in favor of the plaintiffs below. Resolving the appeal on two separate and mutually exclusive grounds. First, holding that the circuit court erred in failing to grant a motion to dismiss based upon the existence of a forum selection clause in a contract directly related to the dispute at issue. Setting forth extensive guidance for construing and applying a forum selection clause, both to signatories and non-signatories. Second, holding that res judicata is an independent basis for reversal, due to an earlier action litigated in Virginia, which defense may be raised on appeal when the prior action relied upon becomes final during the pendency of the appeal.
DODD, et al. v. POTOMAC RIVERSIDE FARM, INC., et al., No. 33501 (Per Curiam)(June 13, 2008). Granting mixed relief from orders of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County in a minority shareholder dissent action. Holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by accepting the special commissioner's stock valuation determination, but that the circuit court's multi-level interest award was unfair and inequitable. Imposing six percent simple interest. Finally determining that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when requiring the corporation to bear the costs of the proceeding.
STATE v. DAVID GABRIEL STAMM, No. 33505 (DAVIS, J.)(May 23, 2008). Reversing a conviction arising from the Circuit Court of Harrison County, for the felony offense of failure to meet an obligation to provide support to a minor under W. Va. Code 61-5-29. Holding, in syllabus point 5 that: "Insofar as W.Va. Code 61-5-29(3)(1999)(Repl. Vol. 2005) shifts to a defendant the burden of disproving a material element of the State's case, in violation of the due process clauses found in Article II, Section 10, of the Constitution of West Virginia, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, that individual provision, severed from the remainder of W. Va. Code 61-5-29, is unconstitutional and unenforceable. W. Va. Code Sections 61-5-29(1) and (2) remain fully enforceable." Under the circumstances of the case, further holding that a jury instructions did not render harmless the constitutional error of the burden-shifting statute, because the jury instructions could have misled the jury into believing that the defendant bore the burden of proof as to his ability to pay support. Remanded for a new trial.
STATE EX REL. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INS. CO., et al. v. KAUFMAN, et al., No. 33652 (DAVIS, J.)(JANUARY 25, 2008). Denying a writ of prohibition sought to prevent enforcement of an order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County that required production of certain discovery materials for in camera inspection along with a privilege log, and denied a motion for protective order and stay of discovery sought by the insurance company. Expanding the WESTFIELD privilege log requirement to all cases where privilege is asserted. Applying the LIGHT multi-factor test to the general question of staying discovery against an insurer where an insured is a co-defendant. Holding that the circuit court correctly determined both issues, and declining to address a bifurcation issue raised because the circuit court had not yet ruled on the issue.
MESSER v. HANNAH, No. 33655 (BENJAMIN, J.)(Starcher, J., and Albright, J., dissenting)(June 26, 2008). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Mingo County that affirmed a decision by the Mingo County Civil Service Commission for Deputy Sheriffs that reinstated the appellee to his former rank with full back pay and no charges placed on his record, after the Sheriff had imposed indefinite suspension for submitting false travel vouchers. Holding that an appellate court can reverse a Civil Service Commission for Deputy Sheriffs where, as here, the commission's decision fails to consider an important aspect of the problem. Because the commission failed to consider the evidence of record offered by the prosecuting attorney to the effect that the appellee's integrity and credibility as a law enforcement officer had been irreparably compromised, the Sheriff's order imposing an indefinite suspension should be reinstated.
STATE EX REL. TUCKER COUNTY SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY v. WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF LABOR, et al., No. 33809 (DAVIS, J.)(Starcher, J., and Albright, J., dissenting)(June 26, 2008). Granting a writ of prohibition to prevent the Department of Labor from continuing administrative proceedings against the a county solid waste authority for failing to pay the prevailing wage to certain temporary workers. Examining whether the Prevailing Wage Act applies to employees of a public authority who are performing work that was never let to contract. Holding in syllabus point 8, that: "Pursuant to W. Va. Code 21-5A-1(7) (1961) (Repl. Vol. 2002), the terms 'employee' and 'workman,' as used in the West Virginia Prevailing Wage Act, W. Va. Code 21-5A-1, et seq., do not include workers who are (1) employed or hired by a public authority on a regular basis, (2) employed or hired by a public authority on a temporary basis, (3) employed or hired by a public authority to perform temporary repairs, or (4) employed or hired by a public authority to perform emergency repairs." Further concluding, in syllabus point 9: "W. Va. Code 21-5A-2 (1961)(Repl. Vol. 2002) requires the prevailing wage to be paid to all workmen who are employed 'on behalf of any public authority' and who are 'engaged in the construction of public improvements.' To the extent that our prior holding in Syllabus point 3 of AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION TRADES FOUNDATION v. UNIVERSITY OF WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, 210 W. Va. 456, 557 S.E.2d 863 (2001), is inconsistent with this holding, it is expressly modified."
MAY v. BOARD OF REVIEW, WEST VIRGINIA BUREAU OF EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS, et al., No. 33703 (Per Curiam)(Maynard, C.J., disqualified)(June 17, 2008). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County that affirmed an administrative decision denying unemployment compensation. Holding that substantial unilateral changes in the terms of the appellant's employment, instigated by her employer, necessitated her resignation, and that she was therefore not disqualified from receiving benefits. Holding that because the Board of Review ignored the factual evidence regarding the substantial unilateral changes in the appellant's employment and failed to analyze whether the changes were substantial and whether they amount to good cause, the Board of Review's findings and legal conclusions were erroneous.
CHILDRESS, et al. v. MUZZLE, et al., No. 33440 (STARCHER, J.)(March 19, 2008). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County that had in turn reversed a decision by the Board of Review of the Bureau of Employment Programs. The BOR decision denied unemployment compensation to two employees who had accepted early retirement packages. Reviewing the relevant statutory scheme and addressing the "good cause" standard, and further holding that employees who accept an early retirement incentive package are disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation unless the employee can establish a well-grounded fear of imminent layoff and that the employee would suffer a substantial loss by not accepting the early retirement incentive package. Reinstating the BOR decision under the circumstances of the case, where neither employees' jobs were threatened if they did not accept the incentive package.
ROSEN v. ROSEN, No. 33437 (BENJAMIN, J.)(June 26, 2008). Affirming an order of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County that affirmed a family court ruling that retained jurisdiction over child custody matters. Construing application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and setting forth guidance for the term "home state" as used therein. Holding that the family court properly concluded that West Virginia is the home state, and because Ohio did not have jurisdiction, the family court did not violate the full and faith and credit clause by ignoring the Ohio court's order.
DEITZ v. DEITZ, No. 33446 (Per Curiam)(February 14, 2008). Granting mixed relief from an order of the Circuit Court of Gilmer County that affirmed a family court's determination that Mr. Deitz was in contempt, but reversed the contempt sanctions and remanded with instructions. Holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to issue a sua sponte stay of the family court's order. Holding that the circuit court properly exercised jurisdiction over the timely appeal, but improperly modified the conditions attached to the contempt order; in light of the facts of the case, the short time periods to purge the contempt were not unreasonable. Further holding that the circuit court erred in determining that the family court failed to consider Mr. Deitz's ability to pay, in light of the evidence in the record, and further in light of Mr. Deitz's lack of proof on that issue. Finally holding that the circuit court erred in reversing the family court's sanction of imprisonment. Remanding with specific directions.
GUIDO v. GUIDO, No. 33599 (Per Curiam)(Albright, J., and Starcher, J., dissenting)(June 18, 2008). Affirming an order of the Circuit Court of Marion County that denied a petition for appeal from a decretal judgment for child support arrearages in the total amount of $22,767.17, on the basis that the petition was not properly completed. Holding that the requirement of service in W.Va. Code 51-2A-11(b) is mandatory, and that lack of a certificate of service upon the obligee and the Bureau for Child Support Enforcement is violation of a mandatory requirement, not a mere technical violation of procedural rules.
CREA v. CREA, No. 33656 (MAYNARD, C.J.)(June 18, 2008). Affirming an order of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County that denied a petition for appeal from a family court final order. Holding that the family court properly allocated marital debt between the parties, properly denied a credit for reduction in mortgage principle, and properly awarded alimony. Clarifying the Court's prior holding in WASHINGTON v. WASHINGTON, 221 W.Va. 224, 654 S.E.2d 110 (2007), and holding that the thirty-day appeal deadline set forth in Family Court Rule 28(a) is not jurisdictional, and may be extended for good cause. The petition under consideration was not timely filed, an no motion seeking an extension was presented. Accordingly, the circuit court's decision is correct.
WHITESIDE v. WHITESIDE, et al., No. 33514 (MAYNARD, C.J.)(Benjamin, J., disqualified)(Judge Alsop, by temporary assignment)(May 28, 2008). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County that denied an appeal from family court in which the appellant sought to void a deed conveying her ex-husband's share of certain marital property to the intervenor below, Equity Holdings, LLC. Setting forth criteria for evaluating whether a transfer of property prior to the effective date of a final order of equitable distribution is valid. Because Equity Holdings had actual notice of the divorce proceedings and also knew of the appellant's intention to make claims against her ex-husband's share of the property, Equity Holdings is not a bona fide purchaser. Further holding that Mr. Whiteside's actions clearly establish an intent to avoid application of the equitable distribution statutes. Remanding for entry of an order voiding the deed, and for determination of a reasonable amount of attorney fees, pursuant to West Virginia Code 48-5-611(c), from either Mr. Whiteside or Equity Holdings, or from both jointly and severally.
STATE EX REL. JAMES BLAINE WALDRON v. SCOTT, No. 33434 (Per Curiam)(March 18, 2008). Affirming an order of the Circuit Court of McDowell County that denied habeas corpus relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Holding that although the order failed to make specific findings as to why an evidentiary hearing was not required, such omission was harmless in light of the fact that each issue raised was exhaustively addressed in the circuit court's order; and further in light of the fact that several of the issues were previously and finally adjudicated in the petitioner's direct appeal. The circuit court addressed the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a very detailed fashion, and correctly held that the prejudice prong of the Strickland standard could not be satisfied.
HORKULIC, etc. v. GALLOWAY, et al. and TIG INSURANCE CO., Appellant --AND-- STATE EX REL. TIG INSURANCE CO. v. RECHT, et al., Nos. 33352 and 33353 (ALBRIGHT, J.)(MAYNARD, C.J., concurring)(DAVIS, J., concurring)(BENJAMIN, J., concurring)(February 19, 2008). Affirming an order of the Circuit Court of Hancock County that enforced a settlement agreement, and holding that the consent judgment contained in the settlement agreement would not be binding upon the insurer in subsequent bifurcated bad faith proceedings. Further holding that under the unique facts of the case, where the insurer was prohibited from participating in the plenary hearing on the settlement issues, and where the record was "littered with examples of uncertainty" about certain aspects of the settlement, that it was inequitable for the circuit court to award attorney fees. Granting a moulded writ, ad remanding with directions to conduct an evidentiary hearing as to the extent of the insurer's culpability in delaying enforcement of the settlement.
STATE EX REL. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INS. CO. v. KARL, et al., No. 33651 (BENJAMIN, J.)(Maynard, C.J., dissenting)(Feb. 14, 2008). Denying a writ of prohibition sought by insurer to prevent enforcement of an order of the Circuit Court of Marshall County. Holding that the name of an insurance company's captive law firm may be identified during voir dire in the same manner as the captive firm otherwise identifies its affiliation with the insurer. Holding that the petitioner placed improper reliance upon a formal ethics opinion, L.E.I 99-01. Holding that separate and distinct voir dire questions should be used, so that the court may inquire of a juror's affiliation with the captive firm without associating the captive firm with defense counsel's office.
263 TOWING, INC. v. MARCUM TRUCKING CO., INC.; LONNIE HANNAH, SHERIFF OF MINGO COUNTY, Appellant, No. 33382 (ALBRIGHT, J.)(March 14, 2008). Reversing orders of the Circuit Court of Mingo County that declined to vacate an earlier ruling granting mandamus relief to compel the sheriff to sign pay orders authorized by the county commission, and further awarded attorney fees and prejudgment interest. Holding that under the Prompt Pay Act, a sheriff's duty to sign pay orders is nondiscretionary only if based upon invoices that reflect legitimate and uncontested costs. Giving effect to the language of the statute, and holding that in the rare case when a sheriff has good cause to doubt the legitimacy of an invoice, supported by demonstrable evidence, the sheriff may refuse to sign the pay order. Further setting forth procedures for requesting a hearing before the county commission in such circumstances. Remanding for further proceedings, including reconsideration of pre-judgment interest and attorney fees, and directing a special prosecutor be appointed to represent the sheriff.
HARRISON COUNTY COMMISSION, et al. v. HARRISON COUNTY ASSESSOR, No. 33381 (DAVIS, J.)(January 25, 2008). Affirming an order of the Circuit Court of Harrison County that granted a petition for a writ of mandamus. Holding that the circuit court correctly concluded that an assessor's hiring of employees to perform assessing and appraising duties is governed by West Virginia Code 11-1C-8(a), and that the advise and consent of the county commission is not required.