Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioners purchased a house for $234,000. Six months later, the County Assessor appraised the property and found its fair market value was $355,200. The Board of Review upheld the Assessor's valuation. The circuit court affirmed. On appeal, Petitioners asserted that the circuit court erred by failing to apply caselaw holding that the price paid for real estate in a recent arm's length transaction is a substantial indicator of the property's true and actual value and that the purchase of the property was in an arm's length transaction on the open real estate market. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's order affirming the Board of Review, holding that the circuit court erred by failing to consider the purchase price of Petitioners' property. Remanded.View "Wright v. Banks" on Justia Law

Beckley Appalachian Regional Hospital (Beckley ARH) was a voluntary provider of medical services through the Medicaid program pursuant to an agreement executed between it and the West Virginia Bureau for Medical Services (BMS). Beckley ARH filed a lawsuit against the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources and its secretary and the BMS and its commissioner (collectively, Respondents), seeking a remedy for inadequate Medicaid reimbursement rates. The circuit court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that W. Va. Code 9-15-16 and 16-29B-20 do not provide for an express or implied private cause of action by a Medicaid provider for judicial review of reimbursement rates for medical services.View "Appalachian Reg'l Healthcare v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. Petitioner appealed his conviction, but the Supreme Court refused the request to hear the appeal. Petitioner subsequently filed a request for habeas corpus relief, alleging that both his trial counsel and his appellate counsel were ineffective. The circuit court denied the requested habeas relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in finding that trial counsel effectively represented Petitioner; and (2) the circuit court did not err in denying habeas corpus relief on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. View "State ex rel. Adkins v. Dingus" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and first degree arson involving a fire that killed his girlfriend. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility for parole on the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding, inter alia, that (1) no error was committed in the way the preliminary hearing was conducted; (2) the circuit court did not err in striking a witness' testimony; (3) the circuit court did not err in denying a mistrial after a witness' testimony was found to be incorrect; (4) the circuit court did not err in allowing into evidence Defendant's statements to law enforcement that were given without Miranda warnings; (4) the circuit court did not err in failing to dismiss the indictment because of spoliation of evidence; and (5) Petitioner's decision to testify on his on behalf was not coerced by the trial court.View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

The West Virginia Real Estate Appraiser Licensing and Certification Board filed disciplinary complaints against Linda York, a licensed real estate appraiser, alleging that York engaged in improper, wrongful or deficient conduct in her work as an appraiser. York filed a petition for writ of prohibition seeking to stop the Board's disciplinary proceedings against her, arguing that the Board lacked the authority to reopen previously dismissed complaints against her and that the Board grossly abused and exceeded its legitimate powers in regard to the remaining complaints. The Supreme Court issued the writ, holding that the Board (1) was without authority to reopen or reinstate the complaints that were duly dismissed; and (2) exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to conduct an administrative hearing on the complaints, and the Board’s failure to do so was in clear violation of State statutory and rule provisions. View "State ex rel. York v. Real Estate Appraiser Licensing & Certification Bd." on Justia Law

Respondent began employment with the Raleigh County Emergency Services Authority in 2002. In 2010, the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board notified Respondent that he was ineligible to participate in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) because he had not worked the statutorily-required 1,040 hours per year necessary for participation in PERS. The Retirement Board upheld the denial. The circuit court reversed, concluding that the Board was equitably estopped from denying to Respondent participation in PERS. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board was not prevented from denying to Respondent the right to participate in PERS where (1) Respondent’s employer erroneously informed him that he was eligible to participate in PERS; and (2) Respondent did not rely on the Board’s representations about his PERS eligibility in accepting the position with the Authority. View "W. Va. Consol. Pub. Ret. Bd. v. Jones" on Justia Law

Greg Chandler’s Frame & Body LLC operated an automobile body shop and was one of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company’s Total Liberty Care Shops. The Attorney General (Respondent) filed a complaint alleging that Liberty Mutual and Chandler (together, Petitioners) violated the West Virginia Automotive Crash Parts Act by requiring the use of and using salvage/recycled OEM crash parts when negotiating and preparing estimates for repairs to vehicles and that Petitioners failed to disclose this practice to consumers. The circuit court granted Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and permanently enjoined Liberty Mutual and Chandler from the practice. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that the Crash Parts Act applies to salvage/recycled OEM crash parts. View "Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Morrisey" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a complaint against West Virginia-American Water Company (Respondent) seeking damages and penalties for alleged violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA) regarding Respondent’s business policies and practices regarding leaks in Petitioner’s water line. The circuit court granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss, finding that Petitioner's claims arose from transactions encompassed by W. Va. Code 46A-1-105(a)(3) and thus were statutorily excluded from the WVCCPA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 46A-1-105(a)(3) applied to exclude Petitioner's WVCCPA claims, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in dismissing Petitioner's complaint. View "Holt v. W. Va. Am. Water Co." on Justia Law

The Catalanos purchased a parcel of real estate and recorded the deed. Later, the Catalanos sold the property to Raymond Smith, but the deed was never recorded. At the time of the conveyance, the Catalanos’ real property taxes were delinquent. The county sheriff subsequently sold the tax lien, in the name of the Catalanos, to Sunrise Atlantic LLC. Thereafter, by tax deed, the county clerk conveyed the property to Sunrise. The deed was recorded. Sunrise conveyed the property to Harpagon MO, LLC, which conveyed the property to Don Mason. The Masons recorded the deed. Thereafter, the Catalanos filed a complaint asserting that they were not provided with the required notice to redeem the property before the tax deed was delivered to Sunrise. The circuit court invalidated the deeds of the Masons, Harpagon, and Sunrise and restored title to the Catalanos because Sunrise failed to serve the Catalanos with the statutorily required notice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment. View "Mason v. Smith" on Justia Law

Respondent filed a complaint in the Kanawha County Circuit Court asserting claims against Petitioners for breach of contract, age discrimination, unlawful retaliation, and unpaid wages. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that Kanawha County was not the proper venue based on the provisions of the general venue statute. The circuit court denied Petitioners’ motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court subsequently granted Petitioners’ requested writ of prohibition, holding that the trial court erred in ruling that venue was proper in Kanawha County, and instead, venue was proper in Logan County because the underlying cause of action transpired in Logan County. View "State ex rel. Thornhill Group, Inc. v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law