Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court answered certified questions seeking to clarify whether, in payment of royalties under an oil and gas lease, the lessor may be required to bear a portion of the post-production costs incurred in rendering the oil and gas marketable.Specifically, the district court asked whether Estate of Tawyne v. Columbia Natural Resources, LLC, 633 S.E.2d 22 (W. Va. 2006) is still good law in West Virginia and then asked the Supreme Court to expound upon its holding in Tawney. The Supreme Court answered (1) Tawney is still good law; and (2) this Court defines to answer the reformulated question of what level of specificity Tawney requires of an oil and gas lease to permit the deduction of post-production costs from a lessor's royalty payments. View "SWN Production Co., LLC v. Kellam" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioners' motion to intervene in the underlying child abuse and neglect proceedings and reunifying the child with Mother, holding that there was no error.Petitioners, the foster parents of the two children in this case, moved to intervene in the underlying proceedings, but the circuit court denied intervention. The court then ordered that the child be reunified with Mother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court properly denied Petitioners' motion to intervene in the underlying child abuse and neglect proceedings. View "In re H.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's request for a writ of prohibition as moulded in this case involving a business dispute rooted in a contract between Petitioner, a manufacturer of hemp-derived vaping cartridges, and Respondent, its distributor, holding that Petitioner was entitled to the writ.Respondent filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Logan County even though the parties' contract required that any lawsuit arising out of the breach of their agreement be filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Indiana. The circuit court denied Petitioner's motion to dismiss the complaint based on the forum-select clause. The Supreme Court remanded the case after granting a writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court incorrectly evaluated the enforceability of the forum-selection clause. View "State ex rel., 3C LLC v. Honorable Eric H. O'Briant" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's professional malpractice claim brought under the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA), holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing the claim with prejudice.Plaintiff sent to Defendant a notice of claim and certificate of merit consistent with the pre-suit notice requirements of the MPLA. Defendant neither requested pre-suit mediation nor declined it. Long after the expiration of the statute of limitations and any statutory tolling periods, Plaintiff received a response letter from Defendant explicitly declining pre-suit mediation. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed her claim. The circuit court dismissed the claim on the grounds that the MPLA does not permit an indefinite tolling of the statute of limitations to facilitate pre-suit mediation and there was no evidence of any affirmative conduct by Defendant that would have induced Plaintiff to delay filing her claim so as to equitably toll the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the circuit court's decision. View "Adkins v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction of one count of death of a child by a parent, custodian, or guardian by child abuse but reversed the determinate sentence of one hundred years imposed by the circuit court and remanded the matter for resentencing, holding that the circuit court erred in part.On appeal, Petitioner challenged the circuit court's ruling that W. Va. Code 61-8D-2a(c) permits the imposition of a determinate sentence within a range of fifteen years to life. The Supreme Court reversed Petitioner's sentence, holding that the 2017 amendment to the statute established an indeterminate sentence. The Court remanded the case for the circuit court to impose an indeterminate sentence as statutorily required. View "State v. Tusing" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to life in prison without mercy for his first-degree murder conviction and terms of imprisonment for his remaining convictions, holding that the circuit court committed reversible error during Defendant's jury trial.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court reversibly erred when it dismissed a member of the jury after deliberations began and replaced that juror with an alternate who had been discharged from the case rather than granting a mistrial. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed Defendant's conviction and the sentencing orders, holding that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for a mistrial. View "State v. Sheffield" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the circuit court granting partial summary judgment to Defendants in this real property dispute, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed, precluding summary judgment.Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendants, claiming that they had a legal right to use a roadway that traversed land owned by Defendants. To support their claim, Plaintiffs relied on a 1905 map. The circuit court determined that it could not consider the map because it was not a "public record" and then granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court abused its discretion in refusing to admit or consider the 1905 map and that remand was required. View "Gregory v. Long" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the sentencing order of the circuit court in this criminal case, holding that Defendant's right to be present at the imposition of his sentence was violated and that this violation was not harmless error.Defendant pled guilty to three counts of failure to register as a sex offender and one count of fleeing from an officer. During the sentencing hearing, Defendant and his counsel participated by video conference. On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court impermissibly failed to allow him to be physically present for his sentencing hearing, in violation of W. Va. R. Crim. P. 62-3-2, W. Va. R. Crim. P. 43 and both the West Virginia and United States Constitutions. The Supreme Court vacated the sentencing order, holding (1) Defendant's right to be present at the imposition of his sentence was violated; and (2) under the circumstances of this case, the error was not harmless. View "State v. Byers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant, Paramount Senior Living at Ona, LLC, and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint alleging that Paramount, which operated a senior care care, was responsible as a successor corporation for alleged wrongful conduct by Passage Midland Meadows Operations, an LLC that previously operated the home when Thelma Sturgeon was there, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not err by applying and expanding the general rule in Davis v. Celotex Corp., 420 S.E.2d 557 (W. Va. 1992) that "the purchaser of all the assets of a corporation is not liable for the debts or liabilities of the corporation purchased" in determining that Paramount was not liable as a successor corporation; and (2) did not err in concluding that the case was ripe for summary judgment. View "Milmoe v. Paramount Senior Living at Ona, LLC" on Justia Law

Following a diagnosis of cancer, Opyoke requested information from his employer, Fairmont Tool, about his right to take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). For approximately four months, Fairmont failed to advise Opyoke of his FMLA rights, in violation of 29 U.S.C. 2615(a)(1). Opyoke sued, alleging that Fairmont interfered with, restrained, or denied the exercise of or the attempt to exercise, his rights under the FMLA. A jury awarded monetary damages.The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed. Although FMLA interference claims do not require a showing of intent on the part of the employer, proof of an interference violation is not enough to establish injury; an employee must also show that he was prejudiced by the violation. While Opyoke was entitled to FMLA benefits and Fairmont was covered by the FMLA, Opyoke failed to present any evidence that he lost compensation or benefits by reason of Fairmont’s technical violation of the FMLA; he presented no evidence as to how he would have structured his leave had Fairmont advised him of his rights under the FMLA. View "Fairmont Tool, Inc. v. Opyoke" on Justia Law