Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The circuit court appointed E.D. to be the guardian and conservator of Respondent, an elderly man with dementia. Acting as Respondent’s conservator, E.D. filed a motion seeking permission to sell two parcels of Respondent’s real property, one in West Virginia and one in Maryland, to pay for Respondent’s living expenses. The circuit court denied E.D.’s motion, concluding (1) the court lacked jurisdiction over the Maryland real estate, and (2) it was not in Respondent’s best interest for the West Virginia property to be sold “at this time.” The Surpeme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in finding it was without jurisdiction to approve the sale of Respondent’s Maryland property and in finding it was not in Respondent’s best interest to sell the West Virginia property. Remanded to the circuit court for entry of an order properly approving the sale of both properties. View "In re Donald M." on Justia Law

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) filed a complaint against Consol Energy, Inc. and Consolidation Coal Company (collectively, Consol) alleging West Virginia common law tort claims and seeking damages for massive losses of fish and aquatic life allegedly caused by Consol’s discharges of waste water into a stream that flows between West Virginia and Pennsylvania. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, concluding that PFBC was only authorized to bring civil suits for damages as a result of violations of Pennsylvania law, and PFBC had no authority to bring a cause of action under West Virginia common law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that PFBC had sufficient interest in the fish and aquatic life under its control to give it standing to file suit in West Virginia and bring West Virginia common law tort claims against Consol to seek recovery of damages as a result of the fish kill. View "Commonwealth of Pa. v. Consol Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to truancy, explaining that the reason her child was absent from school was due to illness. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but reversed the final order with respect to the sentence imposed, holding (1) although Petitioner testified that illness was the cause of her child’s absences from school, the magistrate court’s acceptance of Petitioner’s guilty plea was proper because it was based on the undisputed fact that Petitioner's child had five unexcused absences from school; and (2) the magistrate court committed reversible error by placing Petitioner on probation and ordering her to perform five days of community service in addition to imposing a fine and court costs. View "State v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Following allegations of sexual abuse and failure to protect, the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) brought a child abuse and neglect proceeding against Father and Mother (Petitioners). After an adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court found that the children were abused and neglected, and, after a dispositional hearing, terminated the parental rights of Petitioners. Petitioners appealed, arguing that their procedural due process rights were violated when the out-of-court statements of two children were admitted to prove allegations of sexual abuse when Petitioners were not given an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the children. The Supreme Court affirmed the termination of Petitioners’ parental rights, holding (1) in a child abuse and neglect civil proceeding held pursuant to W. Va. Code 29-6-2, a party does not have a procedural due process right to confront and cross-examine a child, and the circuit court shall exclude this testimony if it finds the potential psychological harm to the child outweighs the necessity of the child’s testimony; and (2) the circuit court adequately safeguarded Petitioners’ procedural due process rights in this case. View "In re J.S." on Justia Law

King Coal Chevrolet Company and Lewis Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac Automotive were two competing Chevrolet dealerships located twelve miles apart. After General Motors Corporation filed for bankruptcy, Lewis closed its Chevrolet operations pursuant to a wind-down agreement with General Motors. General Motors subsequently signed a dealership agreement with Crossroads Chevrolet, which was located ten miles from King Coal. King Coal demanded that General Motors provide it with written notice, as required by W. Va. Code 17A-6A-12(2), of General Motors’ intent to “establish an additional dealer” so that it could exercise its statutory rights and protect its interests under the West Virginia Motor Vehicle Dealers, Distributors, Wholesalers and Manufacturers Act. General Motors asserted that it was exempt from providing notice to King Coal by the safe harbor provision contained in section 17A-6A-12(4) because it was re-establishing a new motor vehicle dealership that had closed within the preceding two years. The federal district court submitted a certified question to the Supreme Court, which answered by holding that the circumstances in this case permitted General Motors to avail itself of the safe harbor contained in section 17A-6A-12(4). View "King Coal Chevrolet Co. v. Gen. Motors LLC " on Justia Law

In 2013, an indictment was returned against Petitioner for breaking and entering and grand larceny. Petitioner filed a motion to quash the indictment on the grounds that the underlying charges were dismissed as part of a plea agreement that had been accepted and approved by the circuit court in 2012. The circuit court denied the motion to quash due to absence of language in the plea agreement to indicate that the dismissal of charges was with prejudice. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to prevent his prosecution and to procure his discharge from custody. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding (1) the absence of the words “with prejudice” was a deficiency in the drafting of the plea agreement, and any ambiguity in this regard was required to be construed in Petitioner’s favor and against the State; and (2) the circuit court exceeded its authority in allowing the instant prosecution to proceed through its denial of Petitioner’s motion to quash and seeking specific performance of the plea agreement. View "State ex rel. Thompson v. Hon. Pomponio " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the facts contained in the affidavit used to obtain search warrants for Appellant’s home and car provided the magistrate with a sufficient basis to demonstrate probable cause of the issuance of the search warrants; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the ammunition and knives found at Appellant’s residence; (3) Appellant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated when the trial court granted the prosecutor’s motion for a continuance; and (4) the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Corey" on Justia Law

In 2012, Monongahela Power Company (“Mon Power”) filed a petition with the Public Service Commission of West Virginia ("Commission") to approve a generation resource transaction between it and Allegheny Energy Supply, LLC (“AE Supply”). The transaction consisted of Mon Power’s acquisition of AE Supply’s interest in the Harrison Power Station (“the plant”) and Mon Power’s recovery of a portion of its investment in that acquisition. The Commission approved a $257 million acquisition adjustment in the purchase price of the plant and allowed Mon Power, under certain conditions, to pass the acquisition adjustment to its customers in the rates that customers pay for electricity. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s order, holding that the Commission’s findings were not contrary to or unsupported by the evidence and were not arbitrary, and the Commission’s application of the law was consistent with Commission precedent. View "W. Va. Citizen Action Group v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of W. Va." on Justia Law

Richard Hardison, a licensed lawyer in West Virginia, was indicted on two criminal counts related to an alleged drug transaction. The transaction involved a confidential informant (“CI”), who was sent by the Raleigh County Sheriff’s Department to meet with and attempt to purchase cocaine from Hardison. The CI, who was equipped with a body wire, allegedly discussed and purchased cocaine from Hardison in Hardison's law office. Hardison moved to suppress the audio recording of his conversation with the CI as a violation of the West Virginia Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act. The circuit court granted the motion to suppress. The State subsequently requested a writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding (1) W.Va. Code 62.1D-9(d) is intended to prevent attorney-client privileged communications from being intercepted by wiretapping or through electronic surveillance; and (2) because Hardison was not acting as an attorney during his conversation with the CI, the circuit court erred in suppressing the audio recording under section 62-1D-9(d). View "State ex rel. State v. Hon. Burnside" on Justia Law

Richard and Linda Nease served a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request on the City of Nitro to inspect or copy certain public City records. The City granted the request in part but advised the Neases that the remaining documents would be subject to a search fee. The Neases then instituted a FOIA action. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Neases, determining that the City ordinance providing for the imposition of a search fee was unlawful because W. Va. Code 29B-1-3 authorizes public bodies to collect the costs of copying requested records but does not sanction a search fee. The City appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the fees authorized in conjunction with FOIA production requests include the actual costs of reproduction as well as a search or retrieval fee, provided that any such fee is reasonable. View "King v. Nease" on Justia Law