Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was a police officer, and later police chief, employed by the City of Montgomery. In 2011, Petitioner’s employment was terminated. Petitioner filed a complaint against the City and the Mayor (collectively, Respondents), asserting that he was discharged without a pre-termination hearing in violation of W. Va. Code 8-14A-1 and in contravention of public policy because he refused to place a GPS tracking device in another officer’s police car. The circuit court granted Respondents’ motion to dismiss, concluding (1) Petitioner was not entitled to a pre-termination hearing; and (2) Respondents were entitled to qualified immunity because Respondents’ alleged conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) the circuit court properly ruled that Petitioner was not entitled to a pre-termination hearing; but (2) Petitioner’s complaint alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of a substantial public policy, and therefore, Respondents were not entitled to qualified immunity from Petitioner’s cause of action for wrongful discharge.View "Brown v. City of Montgomery" on Justia Law

In this divorce case, Husband appealed and Wife cross-appealed from the final order entered by the circuit court. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in part and affirmed in part the decision of the circuit court, holding that the circuit court (1) erred in its valuation of Husband’s marital interest in Advantage Timberland, Inc. (“Advantage”) and erred in its calculation of child support; and (2) did not err in (i) reversing the decision of the family court regarding rehabilitative spousal support; (ii) attributing one-third of the value of Advantage to Husband’s personal good will; and (iii) not awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Wife.View "Ward v. Ward" on Justia Law

Mother and Father’s first child, L.W., died due to abusive head trauma in 2009. Father confessed to causing L.W.’s death and pleaded guilty to felony manslaughter. Father subsequently denied that any abuse or neglect of L.W. occurred. In 2012, Mother and Father’s second child, S.W., was born. The Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed an abuse and neglect petition against Mother and Father, alleging that Father was subject to an aggravated circumstances filing based upon his conviction of manslaughter. The circuit court granted emergency custody of S.W. to the DHHR. After a disposition hearing, the circuit court directed the DHHR to develop a plan for reunification between S.W. and Father. DHHR appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in ordering reunification because Father’s failure to acknowledge responsibility for the death of L.W. rendered the conditions and circumstances in the home untreatable. Remanded for entry of an order terminating the parental rights of Father to S.W. View " In re S.W." on Justia Law

The West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) revoked the driver’s licenses of Respondents following their arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reversed the revocation of Respondents’ driver’s licenses, concluding that the evidence did not establish that Respondents had been lawfully arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. The circuit court denied the DMV’s petitions for judicial review. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the respective DMV orders revoking Respondents’ driver’s licenses, holding that Respondents were lawfully arrested, and the OAH’s findings to the contrary were clearly wrong.View "Dale v. Odum" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with mercy. Defendant appealed the order of the circuit court denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal or, alternatively, motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in its handling of potential prejudice to the venire; (2) the State did not commit a discovery violation entitling Defendant to a new trial; (3) the trial court did not err in refusing to find a violation of W. Va. R. Crim. P. 26.2; and (4) the trial court correctly found evidence of the victim’s sex offender status inadmissible.View "State v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The circuit court adjudicated Mother’s two children abused and neglected and awarded Mother a six-month post-adjudicatory improvement period. After the conclusion of Mother’s improvement period, the circuit court granted primary custodial responsibility to the children’s father (Father) and granted Mother unsupervised visitation with the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by granting Father primary custody of the children where (1) Mother had substantially complied with the terms and conditions of her improvement period because, in making the final disposition in a child abuse and neglect proceeding, the level of a parent’s compliance with the terms and conditions of an improvement period is just one factor to be considered; and (2) any delay in awarding unsupervised visitation to permit Mother to demonstrate what she had learned from her improvement period was due to Mother’s own actions, which caused continuing concern for the children’s safety.View "In re B.H." on Justia Law

After a trial, Petitioner was convicted of second-degree sexual assault and sentenced to an indeterminate term of not less than nor more than twenty-five years. On appeal, Defendant argued that his right to a fair trial was violated when the trial court excluded a defense witness and denied Defendant’s request to inspect the victim’s medical and psychological records. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in excluding the defense witness for failing to comply with the provisions of W. Va. R. Crim. P. 12.1 for the disclosure of alibi witnesses; and (2) the trial court correctly denied Petitioner access to the victim’s medical and psychological records because the records did not contain information that would have assisted Petitioner in the defense of his case. View "State v. Schlatman" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was W. Va. Code 33-6-36, which, in certain circumstances, requires insurance companies to continue motor vehicle liability coverage for a spouse after the death of, or separation or divorce from, the named insured. Francis McComas separated from and then divorced a United Service Automobile Association (USAA) named insured. USAA removed McComas from the named insured’s policy. Seven days after the divorce, McComas lost control of his vehicle and collided with Kimberly Lucas’s vehicle. McComas died in the collision. Lucas, who was seriously injured, filed a lawsuit against McComas’s estate. Plaintiff included a declaratory judgment count against USAA, contending that the USAA motor vehicle policy with McComas’s former spouse provided liability coverage for McComas’s negligence. The circuit court granted judgment for Plaintiff, determining that USAA was required by section 33-6-36 to notify McComas of his right to buy a separate liability insurance policy upon canceling McComas’s liability coverage, and because that notice was not given to McComas, USAA was required to provide liability coverage to McComas’s estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances, 33-6-36 required USAA to notify McComas of the termination of his coverage and his right to request a separate policy.View "United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Lucas" on Justia Law

Thomas and Lori Likens filed a complaint against Petitioners in the circuit court, alleging several claims, including the allegation that Skyline had negligently designed and built their manufactured home. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging that the Likenses were required to file an administrative complaint with the West Virginia Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Board (the Board) as a prerequisite to the filing of their civil complaint. The circuit court denied Petitioners’ motion to dismiss, concluding that W. Va. Code 21-9-11a did not require the Likenses to first file an administrative complaint seeking relief with the Board before asserting their claim seeking damages. Petitioners requested the Supreme Court to issue a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from enforcing its order. The Court granted the requested writ, concluding that W. Va. Code 21-9-11a(b) requires an aggrieved party to file an administrative complaint with the Board before he or she may file a civil lawsuit for monetary damages. View " State ex rel. Skyline Corp. v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree for the armed robbery of a gambling parlor. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment as a recidivist. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor did not commit reversible error during closing argument in the robbery trial; (2) a single reference during trial that Defendant terminated his police interview was not reversible error; (3) the recidivist information filed against Defendant was not fatally flawed; and (4) any error by the trial court in allowing the State to introduce a pre-trial photo line-up as an exhibit and by permitting a witness to make an in-court identification of Defendant was harmless. View "State v. Hillberry" on Justia Law