Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying a motion for summary judgment filed by Adam Goodman and Paul Underwood (collectively, Petitioners) in this personal injury case arising from an accident in which Blake Auton was injured, holding that the allegations against Petitioners were those of pure negligence, which were barred by workers' compensation immunity.In its order denying summary judgment, the circuit court concluded that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Goodman was action within the scope of his employment while he was driving a garbage truck that backed over Auton and that additional discovery was required relating to Underwood's actions. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with direction for the circuit court to grant summary judgment to Petitioners, holding (1) Petitioners were both clearly acting in furtherance of their employer's business when the accident occurred; and (2) therefore, workers' compensation immunity barred the cause of action and entitled Petitioners to summary judgment. View "Goodman v. Auton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment to Clay County Development Corporation (CCDC) in regard to Petitioners' claims of discrimination in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W. Va. Code 5-11-2 and -9, and breach of an implied employment contract, holding that the circuit court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) as used in the Act, ancestry means discrimination based on some characteristic like race, ethnicity, or national origin that is passed down by lineal descendants, and in the context of employment, familial status is not included among the groups entitled to protection under the Act; and (2) the circuit court did not err in its finding that Plaintiffs were at-will employees and as such could be terminated for any non-discriminatory reason. View "Keener v. Clay County Development Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court finding that Petitioner was not competent to stand trial for his alleged crimes, holding that the circuit court did not err.Petitioner was indicted on two counts of soliciting a minor via a computer and one count of use of obscene matter with intent to seduce a minor. After two experts evaluated Petitioner the circuit court determined that Petitioner was not competent to stand trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in regarding to Petitioner's competency determination pursuant to W. Va. Code 27-6A-3. View "State v. Weister" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition prohibiting enforcement of a preliminary injunction against the West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission (WVSSAC) in favor of Heather B. as legal guardian of A.B., holding that WVSSAC showed that it was entitled to the writ.In issuing the preliminary injunction the circuit court concluded that the WVSSAC applied its "waiver rule," W. Va. C.S.R. 127-2-2, in an arbitrary and capricious manner and that its "residence-transfer rule," W. Va. C.S.R. 127-2-7.2a, was facially unconstitutional. The Supreme Court granted a writ prohibiting enforcement of the injunction, holding (1) the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to review A.B.'s as-applied challenge to the WVSSAC's waiver rule; and (2) the circuit court clearly erred in finding the residence-transfer rule to be facially unconstitutional. View "State ex rel. W. Va. Secondary School Activities Comm'n v. Cuomo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal brought by the City of Martinsburg of the judgment of the circuit court entering an injunction halting the City's efforts to regulate the County's excavation and construction of a parking lot on a parcel of property owned by the Berekley County Council (the County) but located within the City's boundaries, holding that the appeal was moot.In appealing the injunction, the City sought to compel the County to comply with a municipal stormwater ordinance in the parking lot's excavation and construction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that where the excavation and construction the City sought to regulate had been completed by the County and where the City's briefing failed to address novel questions of law with a potential to arise again in the future properly and clearly, this appeal is moot. View "City of Martinsburg v. County Council of Berkeley County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court terminating Petitioner's parental rights to his six children and denying his motion to reconsider the court's prior order denying his motion for an improvement period, holding that there was no error.At an adjudicatory hearing, based on Petitioner's admissions to the unsuitable and unsafe living conditions at the time of the emergency removal, the circuit court adjudged the children to be neglected children. Petitioner moved for a post-adjudicatory improvement period to secure a more suitable residence that would be habitable for the children. The circuit court denied the motion. Thereafter, the court terminated Petitioner's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding (1) there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect that led to the removal of the children could be corrected in the near future and that termination of Petitioner's parental rights was appropriate; and (2) termination of Petitioner's parental rights was necessary for the welfare of the children. View "In re J.D.-1" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court terminating Mother's parental rights to her five children, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Following a disposition hearing, the circuit court determined that Mother had not successfully completed her improvement period and terminated her parental rights. Mother appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by terminating her parental rights based on the findings that she had continued to have a relationship with a certain person during her improvement period and that there was no reasonable likelihood of correcting the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit court's determination. View "In re F.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the adjudicatory and dispositional orders of the circuit court in this termination of parental rights case, holding that the circuit court erred when it terminated Father's parental rights because Father did not receive proper notice of the hearing at which he was purportedly adjudicated.The circuit court terminated Father's parental rights for allegedly abandoning his infant son. Father proposed two assignments of error claiming that he was denied an adjudicatory hearing for a determination whether the child had been abuse and/or neglected as alleged. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's order, holding (1) Father did not receive proper notice that the hearing at issue was an adjudicatory hearing from him, and without such notice, Father was not provided due process; and (2) without first holding an adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court could not lawfully proceed to disposition and termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re A.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court applying this Court's decision in State ex rel. AMFM, LLC v. King, 740 S.E.2d 66 (W. Va. 2013), to conclude that Respondent lacked authority to bind her mother to an arbitration agreement, holding that there was no error.Respondent admitted her mother to The Villages at Greystone, an assisted living residence, when Respondent was not her mother's attorney-in-fact. In her capacity as her mother's medical surrogate Respondent completed on her mother's behalf a residency agreement and an arbitration agreement. Respondent later sued Petitioners, alleging that her mother had suffered injuries while a resident of Greystone due to Petitioners' negligence. Petitioners filed a motion to arbitrate the claim, but the circuit court denied the motion, concluding that no valid arbitration agreement existed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioners failed to establish a valid agreement to arbitrate on the facts of this case. View "Beckley Health Partners, Ltd. v. Hoover" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the written dispositional orders entered by the circuit court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that the dispositional orders failed to include findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary to support the termination of parental rights.The Department of Health and Human Resources filed a motion alleging that the termination of Mother's parental rights was required by W. Va. Code 49-4-605(a)(1) because the children had been in foster care for more than fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months. The Supreme Court vacated the orders below and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the circuit court (1) erroneously entered written dispositional orders that contained none of the findings required by W. Va. Code 49-4-604(c)(6) for termination of parental rights; and (2) lacked subject matter jurisdiction to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re C.S." on Justia Law