Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted Defendant of the first degree murder of his wife with a finding that a firearm had been used in the commission of the murder. The circuit court then sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court committed reversible error when it permitted the State to introduce a statement made by him to investigators - a statement in which he confessed to killing his wife. The Supreme Court found no error and affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding that Defendant's statement was voluntarily given and that the trial court did not err in admitting it into evidence. View "State v. Finley" on Justia Law

In these consolidated cases, Petitioners Mountain America, LLC, et al. (hereinafter "Mountain America") appealed from orders entered by the circuit court denying Mountain America's appeals from its ad valorem property tax assessments for tax years 2008 and 2009. In each case, the circuit court ruled that Mountain America's appeal was barred by res judicata because the Supreme Court had previously considered and decided Mountain America I, in which Mountain America unsuccessfully challenged its 2007 ad valorem property tax assessments regarding the same parcels of property as those whose assessments were contested in the 2008 and 2009 litigations. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's rulings in both cases, holding that the Court's decision in Mountain America I did not operate as a res judicata bar to preclude the instant litigation. Remanded for reinstatement of Mountain America's claims for relief from its 2008 and 2009 ad valorem property tax assessments and consideration of the merits thereof. View "Mountain Am., LLC v. Huffman" on Justia Law

In 2010, the Surface Mine Board ordered the State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to pay the Hominy Creek Preservation Association's attorney fees for work performed in two administrative appeals. Eighty-two days after the Board granted the fee award to the Association, the DEP appealed the Board's order to the circuit court. The circuit court reversed, finding that the Association was not entitled to recovery attorney fees from the DEP. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's order reversing the fee award and reinstated the Board's order, holding that the DEP failed to file a timely appeal of the Board's 2010 order. View "Hominy Creek Pres. Ass'n v. W. Va. Dep't of Env't Prot." on Justia Law

Petitioners asked the circuit court to declare that the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board could not impose disability re-certification requirements of an amended statute and new rule upon them. The circuit court determined that Petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and, therefore, dismissed the case. Petitioners appealed, contending the circuit court erred in not reaching the merits of their petition because the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was inapplicable to the facts of their case. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court properly dismissed Petitioners' statute-based claims; but (2) Petitioners' rule-based and letter-based claims were properly before the circuit court. Remanded. View "Hicks v. Mani" on Justia Law

Defendant and Plaintiffs were co-guarantors of a promissory note signed to obtain a bank loan to pay the debts of the parties' failed corporation. Plaintiffs paid the note from their personal funds. Plaintiffs then filed an action against Defendant seeking contribution for the amounts paid from their personal funds. The circuit court determined Defendant was liable to Plaintiffs for one half the amount they paid from their personal funds and entered a judgment order against Defendant in the amount of $24,081. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, to amend the judgment. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly determined that Defendant should pay Plaintiffs $24,081. View "Beverly v. Kent" on Justia Law

Petitioner, Feroleto Steel Company, did business in cutting large steel coils into smaller widths as specified by Petitioner's customers. The tax commissioner denied Petitioner an exemption from ad valorem property taxation, finding that the cutting of the steel coils to an individual customer's specifications results in a product of different utility. On appeal, the circuit court granted summary judgment to Respondents, the state tax commissioner, county assessor, and county commission. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Petitioner's cutting of steel coils into narrower steel coils, as determined by the specifications of Petitioner's customers, does not result in a product of different utility for the purpose of the ad valorem property tax exemption; and (2) therefore, Petitioner's inventory of steel coils was exempt from ad valorem taxation. View "Feroleto Steel Co. v. Oughton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a dump truck driver employed by Independence Coal Company when he suffered a work-related injury. Plaintiff filed a deliberate intent action alleging that Independence created three unsafe work conditions that contributed to Plaintiff's injuries. The circuit court granted Independence's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiff did not prove proximate cause. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in not allowing Plaintiff to rely on three witnesses who worked for Independence to show that an issue of material fact existed; and (2) the circuit court had evidence tending to show that an unsafe working condition was a proximate cause of the incident. Therefore, Plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of fact. Remanded. View "Meadows v. Massey Coal Servs." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a candidate for the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, invoked the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Respondents, including the secretary of state and members of the state election commission, to comply with W. Va. Code 3-12-11(e) and approve the release of matching funds to his campaign. Petitioner, a participant in the Supreme Court Public Campaign Financing Pilot Program, argued that because he complied with the applicable requirements set forth in the Pilot Program, and because one of the privately finances candidates spent a sum sufficient to trigger the matching funds provisions, the election commission was statutorily required to disburse matching funds to his campaign. The Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus requested by Petitioner, holding (1) the matching funds provisions set forth in the Pilot Program violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment; and (2) therefore, Petitioner failed to establish a clear legal right to the relief sought. View "State ex rel. Loughry v. Tennant" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted and sentenced on twenty-six charges stemming from an alcohol-related automobile accident in which five people died and seven others were injured. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) a driver who fails to comply with the requirements of W. Va. Code 17C-4-3 by leaving the scene of an accident resulting in injury or death violates W. Va. Code 17C-4-1 only once regardless of the number of injuries or deaths resulting from the accident; (2) insofar as Appellant was convicted and sentenced on more than one violation of section 17C-4-1, that portion of the circuit court's order was reversed; (3) under W. Va. Code 17C-5-4, any person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to a blood alcohol content test, but if any person under arrest as specified in W. va. Code 17C-5-4 refuses to submit to any secondary chemical test, the tests shall not be given except pursuant to a valid search warrant; and (4) the evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant's convictions of DUI causing death and leaving the scene of the accident. View "State v. Stone" on Justia Law

In this appeal, Defendant challenged an order of the circuit court convicting him of felony murder and child neglect resulting in death and sentencing him to life with mercy for the felony-murder conviction and a consecutive sentence of three to fifteen years for child neglect resulting in death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in allowing the State to proceed against Defendant for the separate offenses of felony murder, death of a child by a parent, and child neglect resulting in death; (2) the evidence was sufficient to prove Defendant caused his son's death beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) the circuit court did not err in suppressing Defendant's statement only during the State's case-in-chief; (4) the circuit court did not err in allowing the State to use photographs of the child's autopsy; and (5) the circuit court did not err in permitting the use of certain W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b) evidence at trial. View "State v. Jenkins" on Justia Law