Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioners Robert and Rickie Bansbach sought injunctive relief in connection with allegations that their neighbors, Respondents Daniel Harbin and Mary Fanok, were engaging in conduct which constituted both a nuisance and harassment. The trial court ruled that Petitioners had failed to demonstrate that Respondents' conduct constituted a private nuisance or that Respondents' speech, both verbal and written, was unlawful. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in ruling (1) Respondents' storing of materials on the Fanok property did not create a nuisance that must be abated by the Court; (2) Respondents' posting of signs and shouting profanities at Petitioners did not amount to fighting words for First Amendment purposes; and (3) Respondents' behavior was not so outrageous that it required injunctive relief. View "Bansbach v. Harbin" on Justia Law

Ruling on a joint petition for declaratory order filed by Monongahela Power Company and Potomac Edison Company ("The Utilities"), The Public Service Commission of West Virginia held that the alternative and renewable energy resource credits attributable to energy purchases by the Utilities from Morgantown Energy Associates (MEA) and the City of New Martinsville ("the Generators"), were owned by the Utilities during the terms of electric energy purchase agreements between the entities. On appeal, the Generators contended that the Commission erred in its ruling and that the energy resource credits were owned by them. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commission did not err in finding the credits at issue were owned by the Utilities; and (2) the Commission did not err in holding that it would deem MEA's Morgantown project as a certified facility under the Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Act upon the submission of sufficient evidence by the Utilities. View "City of New Martinsville v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n " on Justia Law

Petitioner David Griffy pleaded guilty to two counts of grand larceny and was sentenced to two indeterminate one-to-ten year terms of imprisonment. Griffy subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence and a motion to withdraw plea. The circuit court denied the motions. Griffy appealed, asserting that the circuit court committed reversible error by failing to comply with W.Va. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(2). The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) it was evident that Griffy did not understand when he pled guilty that he would not be allowed to later withdraw his plea if his sentence did not meet his expectations, and there was no evidence that Griffy was ever given a Rule 11(2)(e) warning; and (2) the substantial rights of Griffy were affected by the circuit court's failure to give the Rule 11(e)(2) warning. Remanded with instructions that Griffy be given an opportunity to either plead anew or to grant specific performance so that the sentence comported with the reasonable understanding and expectations of Griffy as to the sentence for which he bargained. View "State v. Griffy" on Justia Law

After an approximately twenty-one year marriage, Constance Mayle and Mark Mayle were divorced. The family court ordered Mark to pay Constance permanent spousal support in the amount of $5,500 per month, with an additional $1,500 per month for six months designated as rehabilitative support. After a period of ten years, the family court ordered that the monthly spousal support be reduced to $1,500 per month. The family court denied Constance's request for reimbursement spousal support and for attorney fees and costs. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) there was no error in the award of rehabilitative spousal support for six months or in the amount of the permanent spousal support for the first ten years; but (2) the circuit court and family court erred in (a) reducing the amount of spousal support to $1,500 after ten years, and (b) denying Constance's request for attorney fees. Remanded. View "Mayle v. Mayle" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner Samuel Scarbro was convicted in the circuit court of the felony offense of fraudulent use of a bank conveyance or access device. At issue on appeal was whether the circuit court erred in excluding from the evidence at trial a prior inconsistent statement of the State's key witness. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the witness's pre-trial statement should have been admitted at Petitioner's trial, and the circuit court's refusal to do so constituted error; and (2) the error in excluding the evidence was not harmless, as the improper exclusion of the witness's prior inconsistent statement placed the fairness of Petitioner's trial in doubt. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Scarbro" on Justia Law

After being stopped and arrested for DUI at a safety checkpoint established by state police, David Smith's license was administratively revoked. On administrative appeal, the DMV Commissioner found that the initial traffic stop failed to comply with the requirements set forth in State v. Sigler, but that failure affected only the criminal portion of the proceedings and did not impact the authority of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to administratively revoke Smith's license in a separate civil proceeding. The circuit court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court, holding, inter alia, that the circuit court erroneously applied the exclusionary rule within the civil context. Remanded for entry of an order reinstating Smith's civil administrative license revocation. View "Miller v. Smith" on Justia Law

Petitioner, J.S., was a thirteen-year-old boy who suffered from cerebral policy. Through his mother, J.S. submitted an authorization request for a power wheelchair with fifty-five accessories to the respondent, the state department of health and human resources (DHHR), which administers the Medicaid program in West Virginia. DHHR denied Petitioner's request on the basis that it exceeded the Medicaid policy of providing only the most economical equipment to meet a recipient's basic health care needs. The DHHR board of review upheld the denial. The circuit court upheld the decision. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court applied an erroneous standard of review to the decision of the DHHR board of review. Remanded to the circuit court with direction to make an independent review of both the law and the facts of this case. View "J.S. v. Hardy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Angela Smith filed a complaint against her employer, CSX Transportation, Inc., alleging sexual harassment, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment, and negligent retention of an employee. The jury returned a verdict for Smith and awarded Smith $1,557,600 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. The circuit court denied CSX's motion for post-trial relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by denying CSX's request for post-trial relief, as (1) Smith presented sufficient evidence to prove her hostile work environment claim; (2) the jury was instructed correctly on the law of retaliatory discharge; and (3) the evidence supported the jury's award of punitive damages. View "CSX Transp., Inc. v. Smith" on Justia Law

After Vicki Savard drowned in a whitewater rafting accident, Petitioner, the personal representative of Savard's estate, filed a wrongful death complaint against a rafting company, its CEO, and three river guides, including Travis Cobb. A process server gave a summons and complaint to Cobb's father at the Jefferson County address where Cobb was believed to reside. Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency of service of process, and for lack of venue. The circuit court of Jefferson County granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding (1) Cobb was not a resident of Jefferson County, and therefore, attempted substituted service was not proper; and (2) the court did not have venue to hear the case because no other named defendant resided in Jefferson County, nor did the accident occur in Jefferson County. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court had personal jurisdiction to proceed with the action because Cobb's usual place of abode, when the summons and complaint were served, was the Jefferson County address; and (2) accordingly, the court had venue to hear Petitioner's complaint. View "Savard v. Cheat River Outfitters, Inc." on Justia Law

Respondent Christopher Toler's driver's license was revoked by the Commissioner of the Division of Motor Vehicles after Respondent's vehicle was stopped at a vehicle equipment checkpoint and Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence. The circuit court reversed, concluding (1) Respondent was driving while under the influence of alcohol; but (2) the vehicle equipment checkpoint at which Respondent was stopped was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the judicially-created exclusionary rule is not applicable in a civil, administrative driver's license revocation or suspension proceeding; and (2) therefore, the circuit court erred in applying the exclusionary rule to exclude all evidence in this case. Remanded. View "Miller v. Toler" on Justia Law