Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court finding that Defendant had not been lawfully arrested without a warrant and thus reversing the decisions of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to revoke Defendant's driver's license, holding that the circuit court did not err.A law enforcement officer arrested Defendant in his home without a warrant for a misdemeanor committed elsewhere. Rhe officer articulated no urgent need to arrest Defendant and admitted that he could have obtained a warrant from an impartial magistrate. The DMV applied evidence suggesting that Defendant might have driven while intoxicated from the scene of the misdemeanor to his home in three separate decisions revoking Defendant's driver's license. The circuit court reversed the revocation decisions, concluding that they were clearly wrong in light of the now-repealed W. Va. Code 17C-5A-2(f)(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding that the DMV's suspension orders were founded upon an unlawful arrest. View "Frazier v. Briscoe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part a writ requested by Petitioners prohibiting the Honorable David H. Wilmoth, Judge of the Circuit Court of Randolph County, from enforcing its order denying Petitioners' motion to dismiss certain claims set forth in the underlying wrongful termination complaint, holding that some of Respondents' claims should have been dismissed.On appeal, Respondents argued that Petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies through the state public employees grievance procedure, W. Va. Code 6C-2-1 to -8, and that other claims were subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred in denying Respondents' motion to dismiss certain claims; and (2) the remaining claims were not barred by the exhaustion rule and were sufficiently pled to go forward. View "State ex rel. Devono v. Honorable Wilmoth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court dismissing the underlying abuse and neglect petition against Father and remanded for the circuit court to adjudicate him as a neglectful parent, holding that the circuit court erred in dismissing the abuse and neglect petition.As to the merits of the underlying abuse and neglect allegations, the circuit court denied adjudication, concluding that a prior decision by the Court dictated its decision. The court then "reluctantly" ordered that the State return the child to Father despite his methamphetamine use. The child's guardian ad litem appealed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for the circuit court to adjudicate Father as a neglectful parent, holding that the case that the circuit court relied on was materially distinguishable from this case and that a parent threatens his child's well-being when he chronically abuses methamphetamine while entrusted as the child's custodian. View "In re S.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and vacated in part the decision of the circuit court determining that the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (Uniform Act) applied to the Glade Springs Village (GSV) community and finding that Justice Holdings, LLC, the developer of GSV, owed funds to the GSV Property Owners Association, Inc., holding that the order was insufficient to allow adequate appellate review with respect to the assessments and other funds.Justice Holdings controlled the Association and selected the Association's Board of Directors until 2018, when the GSV lot owners elected the Board. Justice Holdings later sued the Association for nonpayment on a loan, claiming breach of contract and entitlement to specific performance. The Association counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Association's declaration's exemption provisions violated the Uniform Act. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Association. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court to the extent it granted summary judgment on the loan issue and finding that the Uniform Act applied; but (2) reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the portion of order regarding the payments of assessments and funds because the order made insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to allow adequate appellate review. View "Justice Holdings, LLC v. Glade Springs Village Property Owners Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court determining that Bank breached its contract with Respondent by refusing to tender payment upon Respondent's presentation of an an original unendorsed money market certificate of deposit (CD), holding that Bank was not entitled to relief on its allegations of error.Respondent presented to Bank and demanded payment of the CD issued in 1980 by Bank and payable either to Respondent or her father. Bank denied payment, determining that there was no existing account associated with the CD. Respondent brought this action alleging breach of contract. The jury found for Respondent and awarded her damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Bank's motion for judgment as a matter of law; (2) the circuit court did not err in refusing two proffered jury instructions; and (3) the filing of this matter was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations. View "Wesbanco Bank, Inc. v. Ellifritz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the circuit court entering judgment on a jury verdict in favor of Cornerstone Hospital of Huntington, LLC in this lawsuit brought by Petitioner seeking damages for injuries he sustained while visiting a patient at Cornerstone, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that the peer review privilege protected Cornerstone's incident report from discovery.At issue was a circuit court order protecting from discovery an incident report in which an employee of Cornerstone described the condition of the patient's room following Petitioner's injury based on the peer review privilege set forth in W. Va. Code 30-3C-1 to -5. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in ruling that the peer review privilege protected the incident report from discovery because the employee prepared the report exclusively for its own use in its internal quality assurance and facility maintenance review process; and (2) did not err in entering judgment on the jury's verdict because Petitioner failed to rebut Cornerstone's assertion of the peer review privilege. View "Toler v. Cornerstone Hospital of Huntington, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court affirming the order entered by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upholding the administrative revocation of Petitioner's driver's license for driving under the influence of controlled substances or drugs, holding that the evidence was not sufficient to support Defendant's license revocation.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the record did not support the OAH's finding that there was sufficient evidence to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner had consumed alcohol, drugs, and/or controlled substances because the Department of Motor Vehicles offered no evidence that Defendant used or ingested controlled substances or drugs. Therefore, the Court remanded the case for entry of an order rescinding Defendant's revocation and reinstating his driver's license. View "Casto v. Frazier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) modifying an "Underground Injection Control Permit" issued to American Bitumious Power Partners, L.P. (Ambit) allowing Ambit to pump or inject acid mine drainage (AMD) into an abandoned underground mine, holding that the EQB acted within its discretion when it modified the permit.The permit at issue allowed Ambit to inject increased volumes of AMD that was sought in Ambit's permit application. The EQB concluded that the DEP's issuance of the permit was arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of applicable statutory and regulatory provisions governing the process for issuing permits. In modifying the permit, the EQB reduced the higher quantities of AMD sought by Ambit and ordered that Ambit would only be permitted to inject the same amounts of AMD approved earlier. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the EQB's findings supported by the substantive evidence on the record; and (2) the EQB's conclusions were neither arbitrary nor capricious nor an abuse of discretion. View "W. Va. Land Resources, Inc. v. American Bituminous Power Partners, LP" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court enforcing a settlement agreement between Petitioner and Respondents, holding that the circuit court erred when it found that the parties entered into a settlement agreement by e-mail without holding a hearing on the matter.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the settlement lacked mutual assent and that the terms of the purported settlement required a written agreement. The court granted Respondents' motion to enforce the settlement agreement, finding that the parties agreed to all material terms of the agreement and formed a contract through their emails. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the paucity of the record before the circuit court required an evidentiary hearing for the court to determine whether there was a meeting of the minds regarding the terms of the agreement. View "Levine v. Rockwool International A/S" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court affirming an order entered by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reinstating Respondent's personal driver's license and commercial driver's license after Defendant challenged the finding of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) that Respondent drove under the influence of alcohol, holding that there was no error.In 2017, the DMV revoked Respondent's personal driver's license and disqualified him from holding a commercial driver's license. Following an administrative hearing in 2019, the OAH rescinded the DMV's revocation and disqualification orders. The OAH reinstated both of Respondent's licenses, finding that the DMV had not proven that Respondent drove a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the DMV did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent drove a motor vehicle while he was under the influence of alcohol. View "Frazier v. Gaither" on Justia Law