Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Dorothy Douglas died from severe dehydration not long after leaving Heartland Nursing Home, where she stayed for nineteen days. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of Douglas’s estate, brought claims of negligence, violations of the West Virginia Nursing Home Act (NHA), and breach of fiduciary duty against Defendants, several corporate entities related to Heartland. After a jury trial, Plaintiff was awarded $11.5 million in compensatory damages and $80 million in punitive damages. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred in concluding that the NHA was not governed by the Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA), and due to a lack of evidence that the pre-suit requirements of the MPLA were met, the claim is dismissed and the accompanying $1.5 million award is vacated; (2) the circuit court erred in recognizing a breach of fiduciary duty claim against a nursing home, and therefore, the claim is dismissed and the accompanying $5 million award is vacated; and (3) the punitive damages award is reduced proportionate to the reduction in compensatory damages. Remanded. View "Manor Care Inc. v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were married and had three minor children. After Mother and Father divorced, the family court ordered that Father’s parents should have visitation with the children every other Saturday. Mother appealed, asserting that the family court erred in granting grandparent visitation. The circuit court refused Mother’s petition for appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the family court exceeded its authority under the West Virginia Grandparent Visitation Act when it awarded visitation with the children to the grandparents; and (2) the circuit court continued the legal error in refusing Mother’s petition for appeal. Remanded for entry of an order denying grandparent visitation rights to the grandparents. View "Alyssha R. v. Nicholas H." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner, Gary Lee Rollins, was convicted of the first degree murder of his wife, Teresa Rollins. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner waived the right to challenge the prosecutor’s remarks to the jury during closing arguments; (2) the circuit court did not err by refusing to strike a certain juror for cause during voir dire and by failing to strike a juror upon discovering that the juror was a former client of the prosecutor; (3) the circuit court did not err in admitting evidence of domestic violence; (4) the State’s presentation of three medical expert witnesses did not constitute cumulative evidence that prejudiced Defendant; and (5) Defendant did not preserve for appeal his argument that he was subjected to unfair surprise when one of the State’s medical expert witnesses testified in a manner inconsistent with his report. View "State v. Rollins" on Justia Law

The parties in this case entered into an agreement with two writings drafted by U-Haul of West Virginia. The first writing was a rental contract signed by the three plaintiffs. The second writing was a rental contract addendum that was not signed. The addendum contained a provision requiring that any disputes between the parties be arbitrated and was not made available to U-Haul customers prior to their execution of the rental contract. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against U-Haul for breach of contract and false advertising, among other claims. U-Haul sought to compel Plaintiffs to resolve their claims in arbitration, arguing that the addendum was incorporated by reference into the signed rental contracts, and thus, U-Haul was allowed to enforce the arbitration provision. The circuit court denied U-Haul's motion to compel arbitration. U-Haul then filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking a writ of prohibition to set aside the circuit court order that refused to compel Plaintiffs to participate in arbitration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the addendum was not incorporated by reference into the signed rental contracts.View "State ex rel. U-Haul Co. of W. Va. v. Zakaib" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree robbery and conspiracy and sentenced to serve fifty-two to sixty years in prison. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court issued a Memorandum Decision holding Defendant's appeal in abeyance to permit the circuit court to enter an order on the issues of whether the Drug Enforcement administration (DEA) properly issued an administrative subpoena to obtain Defendant's cellular phone records and whether the DEA properly released that information with members of the police department. On remand, the circuit court entered an amended order denying Defendant's motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's amended order denying Defendant's motion to suppress, holding (1) the police department acted improperly toward the DEA in obtaining Defendant's phone records; (2) Defendant had no constitutionally protected legitimate expectation of privacy in his phone records, and thus, the exclusionary rule did not apply in this case; and (3) Defendant did not have standing to question the validity of the subpoena in a state court proceeding.View "State v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Charleston Gazette filed an action against the superintendent of the state police under the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking the disclosure of public records from the state police concerning its internal review of complaints made against state police officers. The circuit court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the information sought by the Gazette was statutorily exempt from disclosure. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in determining that none of the information sought by the Gazette was subject to disclosure. Remanded to the circuit court to review the disputed documents and to determine what information was subject to disclosure under the FOIA. View "Charleston Gazette v. Smithers" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, first degree robbery, and criminal conspiracy. The accomplice who shot and killed the victim pled guilty to first degree murder, and as part of his plea agreement, the accomplice testified for the State during Defendant's trial about his guilty plea. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding (1) an accomplice who has entered a plea of guilty to the same crime charged against the defendant may testify as a witness on behalf of the State, but if the jury learns of the accomplice's guilty plea, then, upon the motion of the defendant, the trial court must give a limiting jury instruction; and (2) because Defendant did not preserve any error by objecting or requesting a limiting instruction in this case, the trial court did not plainly err in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial on the ground that the court failed to give a limiting instruction regarding the accomplice's testimony.View "State v. Flack" on Justia Law

EB Dorev Holdings, Inc. purchased tax liens on certain properties from Kanawha County. The West Virginia Department of Administration, Real Estate Division (WVDOA) later filed a complaint against EB Dorev and Kanawha county seeking to prevent the issuances of the tax deeds to EB Dorev. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the WVDOA and voided the sale of the tax liens. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in ruling that the properties were entered exempt from 2009 real estate taxes upon the WVDOA’s purchase of the properties from private entities in August and September of 2008; but (2) the circuit court’s alternative finding that the tax liens at issue were extinguished through the doctrine of merger was not in error. View "EB Dorev Holdings v. W. Va. Dep’t of Admin., Real Estate Div." on Justia Law

Mark Miller sued Justin Golden for criminal conversation, adultery and breach of fiduciary duty to a beneficiary, alleging that his ex-wife engaged in an adulterous affair with Golden that led to the Millers’ divorce. Golden filed a motion for summary judgment, which the circuit court denied. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for a writ of prohibition, arguing that all of Miller’s causes of action were, in essence, claims for alienation of affections, which are statutorily prohibited. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ of prohibition, holding (1) all of Miller’s causes of action were based on claims for alienation of affections; and (2) because all claims for alienation of affections are prohibited by W. Va. Code 56-3-2a, the torts of criminal conversation and adultery are hereby abolished. View "State ex rel. Golden v. Hon. Kaufman" on Justia Law

Petitioner was indicted on two counts of third degree sexual assault and two counts of sexual abuse by a custodian. The circuit court subsequently found that Petitioner was not competent to stand trial and was not likely to gain competency. As a result, Petitioner argued that the court should dismiss the charges against him. The circuit court disagreed, finding that the felonies of which Petitioner was charged involved acts of violence against a person. Therefore, the court found that it would maintain jurisdiction over Petitioner for fifty years and ordered Petitioner committed to a mental health facility. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by finding that the crimes with which Petitioner was charged involved an act of violence and therefore proceeding pursuant to W. Va. Code 27-6A-3(h). View "State v. George K." on Justia Law