Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Department of Health and Human Resources appealed a circuit court's order dismissing a petition alleging a father had abused and neglected his daughter. After vesting legal custody of the child with the child's grandmother - a disposition the Department supported - the circuit court determined that further hearings on the petition would not be in the best interests of the child. The Department asserted on appeal that the circuit court was still required to formally determine whether abuse or neglect occurred before the petition could be dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in its finding that full adjudication of the petition was not in the best interests of the child. View "In re D.P." on Justia Law

In this appeal from the circuit court, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in a vehicle collision case. The plaintiff, a passenger in the back seat of a vehicle, was injured when the vehicle collided with another vehicle driven by the defendant. The jury determined that the defendant had been negligent and proximately caused injury to the plaintiff. The defendant appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the jury's verdict and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the circuit court erred in refusing to instruct the jury to assess whether the plaintiff was comparatively negligent and caused or contributed to his own injuries. View "Halcomb v. Smith" on Justia Law

Before the Supreme Court were consolidated appeals of three separate final orders of the circuit court. The appeals were made by Petitioners, state troopers or their survivors, and were as follows: (1) Petitioners appealed a March 30, 2011 order dismissing their complaint against the state police and others alleging they were placed in the wrong retirement plan; (2) Petitioners appealed a March 30, 2011 order granting summary judgment in favor of the state police in Petitioners' claim that the police, during the recruitment of Petitioners, misrepresented which retirement plan Petitioners would be placed in upon their employment as state troopers; and (3) Petitioners appealed a June 29, 2011 order denying Petitioners' motion, made pursuant to W.V. R. Civ. P. 60(b), for relief from the circuit court's March 30, 2011 order dismissing the complaint against the retirement board, state, state police retirement system, and others. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the court's March 30, 2011 order dismissing all of the respondents except the state police; (2) affirmed the March 30, 2011 order that granted summary judgment on behalf of the state police; and (3) affirmed the June 29, 2011 order denying Petitioners' Rule 60(b) motion. View "Bland v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of burglary (against his father), battery of an elder person (against his father), and domestic assault (against his stepmother). All three convictions were the result of one trial and based upon the same criminal acts by Petitioner. In this appeal, Petitioner asserted that the circuit court erred by granting the State's motion to join a subsequently filed information (the domestic assault against Petitioner's stepmother) with a previously returned indictment (which included the burglary and battery charges against Petitioner's father) where the basis for joinder was that they arose out of a common nexus of fact. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court was correct in allowing consolidation of the indictment with the later filed information charge, as the State did not amend the indictment, nor was there any allegation that the original indictment was flawed in any way. View "State v. Hartman" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with mercy. This was Petitioner's second appeal of that conviction; his conviction was first upheld on direct appeal to the Supreme Court. In his initial appeal, among other assignments of error, Petitioner asserted that admission of an autopsy report without the accompanying testimony of the authoring pathologist violated his Confrontation Clause rights. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Mechling, which overruled Kennedy I as to the Court's holding on the Confrontation Clause issue, Petitioner filed another motion for a new trial. The circuit court denied the motion, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that although the admission of the autopsy report and testimony reiterating its contents violated the Confrontation Clause under current caselaw, the errors found by virtue of applying the new rule of Mechling were not redressable by Petitioner, and therefore did not afford him a new trial. View "State v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

Petitioner entered a conditional guilty plea to first degree robbery. His guilty plea was conditioned upon an appeal to the Supreme Court concerning the circuit court's order denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during his arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in permitting the State to use evidence obtained from Petitioner's home pursuant and subsequent to a warrantless search and seizure because the search was valid, as the police the police had reasonable grounds to believe that if an immediate arrest were not made, Petitioner might, during the time necessary to procure a warrant, endanger the safety of others. View "State v. Farley" on Justia Law

Quicken Loans, Inc., a Michigan corporation and a large national mortgage lender doing business in West Virginia, appealed an order of the circuit court denying post-trial motions for amendment of the circuit court's findings of fact and/or conclusions of law and for offset following a verdict which found it liable for common law fraud and various claims under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act in connection with a subprime loan made to Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the circuit court, holding (1) the elements of fraud were not met with regard to Quicken's misrepresentation of loan discount points, but the other acts of fraud were proven by clear and convincing evidence; (2) the circuit court correctly found that, given the particular facts of this case, the terms of the loan and the loan product were unconscionable; (3) the circuit court incorrectly cancelled Plaintiff's obligation to repay the loan principal; and (4) because the circuit court's order in punitive damages lacked the necessary analysis and findings, the Court was unable to conduct an adequate review of the punitive damages award. Remanded. View "Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Brown" on Justia Law

The warden of a correctional complex appealed the decision of the circuit court vacating a conviction entered against Respondent for one count of sexual assault in the first degree, one count of child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, and one count of incest, and awarding him a new trial. As grounds for its decision to grant Respondent relief on his habeas corpus petitions, the circuit court cited three errors committed by the trial court. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of habeas corpus, holding (1) the circuit court abused its discretion in granting a new trial to Respondent without the proper demonstration that Respondent's constitutional right to a fair trial was violated by the giving of one particular instruction; (2) the circuit court abused its discretion in ruling that the limitation of character witnesses to four was constitutionally deficient; and (3) the circuit court erred in funding the evidence was insufficient to convict Respondent of the rape of the victim. View "McBride v. Lavigne" on Justia Law

EQT Production Company was the lessee of an oil and gas lease. Matthew Hamblet was the surface owner of a parcel of property included within EQT's leasehold. EQT filed a permit application with the Office of Oil and Gas of the West Virginia EPA (DEP) for a shallow well targeting a Marcellus formation. The DEP issued the permit requested by EQT. Subsequently, Hamblet filed a petition for appeal of the issuance of the well permit in the circuit court. The DEP and EQT filed motions to dismiss the petition contending that Hamblet did not have the right to appeal the issuance of the permit. The circuit court denied the motions, concluding that Hamblet had the right to appeal the permit, but submitted its ruling to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held (1) upon consideration of the court of appeals' opinion in State ex rel. Lovejoy v. Callaghan and the relevant statutes, a surface owner is not permitted to seek judicial review of the DEP's issuance of a well work permit for a horizontal Marcellus well; and (2) given this fact, the Court had no basis to find Hamblet had a right to appeal the well work permitted issued by the DEP. View "Martin v. Hamblet" on Justia Law

This case involved the appeal of Petitioner of her sentence of life without mercy imposed in the circuit court by order, as recommended by the jury which found Petitioner guilty of first degree murder. Petitioner assigned four errors committed by the trial court, including the admission of the decedent's statements, failure to give a Harden instruction, failure to give a good character instruction, and the failure to suppress one of Petitioner's statements to the police. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) the court did not err in admitting the statements of the decedent; (2) the court's decision to admit the statement was not an abuse of discretion; but (3) under the limited circumstances of this case, the court erred in failing to give a proper good character instruction. View "State v. Surbaugh" on Justia Law