Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After the birth of B.J. in May 2024, the West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition alleging that the child’s parents had previously been adjudicated as abusive and neglectful custodians of another child, R.K., following R.K.’s unexplained spiral arm fracture at three months old. The prior proceedings had resulted in a court order involuntarily terminating the rights that the father held with respect to R.K. The 2024 petition further alleged that neither parent had experienced a change in circumstances since that prior termination, as demonstrated by their uncooperative and evasive behavior during the DHS’s investigation following B.J.’s birth.The Circuit Court of Wood County conducted an adjudicatory hearing in September 2024. The father, represented by counsel, did not contest the adjudication, agreeing to testify in what functioned as an agreed-upon adjudication. He acknowledged the prior termination of his rights to R.K., admitted to not having engaged in any corrective services, and failed to provide any explanation for R.K.’s injury. The court found both parents to be abusive and neglectful and determined that B.J. was an abused and neglected child. At the dispositional stage, the court found no reasonable likelihood of correcting the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future and terminated the father’s parental rights to B.J.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The court held that it is proper for a circuit court to consider a prior involuntary termination of custodial or parental rights—regardless of the precise legal nature of those rights—together with a respondent’s failure to remedy the conditions that led to the prior termination. The court found that the DHS had met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in adjudicating the father as abusive and neglectful and terminating his parental rights to B.J. View "In re B.J." on Justia Law

A maintenance worker was accused by a tenant of assault during a dispute at an apartment complex. Law enforcement officers responded to a report that the worker had threatened the tenant and then left in a vehicle. Officers located the worker in a nearby parking lot and, during the encounter, the worker refused multiple requests to exit his vehicle, insisting instead on speaking through a closed window. After repeated warnings, officers broke the window, removed the worker from the vehicle, and discovered a loaded handgun on his person. The worker was arrested and charged with two misdemeanors: obstructing an officer and assault.The case began in the Magistrate Court of Ritchie County, where the criminal complaint was filed and the magistrate found probable cause to proceed. The accused filed a brief motion to dismiss, which the magistrate denied. The accused then sought a writ of prohibition from the Circuit Court of Ritchie County, arguing that the facts did not support an obstruction charge. The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing, took testimony and exhibits, and ultimately granted the writ, concluding there was no factual basis for the obstruction charge and ordering dismissal of that charge.The State of West Virginia then sought a writ of prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia to prevent enforcement of the circuit court’s order. The Supreme Court of Appeals held that the circuit court exceeded its legitimate powers by conducting an evidentiary hearing and weighing evidence at a stage where only the adequacy of the criminal complaint and the magistrate’s initial probable cause finding should have been reviewed. The Supreme Court of Appeals granted the writ, reinstated the criminal complaint as to the obstruction charge, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State ex rel. State v. Sweeney" on Justia Law

Brooke Morton was admitted to the hospital at 37 weeks gestation for labor induction due to cystic fibrosis-induced diabetes. After complications, her baby, Brody Morton, was delivered by emergency cesarean section, resuscitated, transferred to the NICU, and passed away five hours later. Mrs. Morton suffered severe postpartum complications. Mr. Morton consented to an autopsy, allegedly under the impression it would be performed by the state medical examiner, but later learned it was conducted by the hospital, with internal organs not preserved, preventing further autopsy.The Mortons sent two pre-suit notices and screening certificates of merit to the hospital, one for medical negligence related to labor and delivery, and another for emotional distress and related claims concerning the autopsy and handling of organs. The hospital responded by requesting more definite statements and identifying perceived deficiencies, following procedures established in Hinchman v. Gillette. The Mortons replied with additional certificates. The complaint included claims against both the hospital and the West Virginia University Board of Governors (WVUBOG). After mediation, the Mortons settled medical negligence claims with WVUBOG, but not with the hospital. The hospital moved to dismiss, arguing that the Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA) applied and the certificates were deficient, depriving the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction. The Circuit Court of Monongalia County dismissed some claims but denied dismissal of emotional distress claims, finding MPLA did not apply.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the hospital’s petition for a writ of prohibition. The Court held that while total failure to provide pre-suit notice under the MPLA is jurisdictional, alleged deficiencies in a screening certificate of merit do not deprive a circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction. The writ of prohibition was denied, and the circuit court’s order stands. View "State ex rel. West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Simms" on Justia Law

This case involves allegations that two children, S.H. and F.B., were abused and neglected by their mother and stepfather. The West Virginia Department of Human Services filed a Sixth Amended Petition after an altercation between Mother and S.H. that was recorded on video. The petition included claims of physical abuse, substance abuse, and failure by the stepfather to protect the children. After the incident, both children were removed from the home. The record shows that the parents had previously completed improvement periods related to earlier petitions involving allegations of abuse and neglect.The Circuit Court of Wood County conducted two adjudicatory hearings where it heard testimony from the parents, a Child Protective Services worker, a police officer, and others. The court admitted videos of the altercation and forensic interviews of the children. Despite conflicting evidence, the circuit court found that clear and convincing evidence did not establish that S.H. or F.B. were abused or neglected and dismissed the petition. In a supplemental order, the circuit court acknowledged significant evidence on both sides but maintained that the Department of Human Services had not met its burden of proof. The guardian ad litem for F.B. appealed, arguing that the court failed to make sufficient factual findings and failed to adjudicate the parents as abusive or neglectful.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and determined that the circuit court did not comply with statutory requirements or procedural rules, which mandate explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding whether a child is abused or neglected. The appellate court vacated the circuit court’s orders as to F.B. and remanded the case with instructions for the circuit court to enter a new adjudicatory order containing adequate findings and conclusions. View "In re F.B." on Justia Law

A dispute arose among family members who owned and operated a car dealership in West Virginia following the distribution of shares from a trust created by their late mother. One sibling, who received a minority share of the company, brought suit against her relatives, including her sister, brother-in-law, nieces, and one niece’s husband, all of whom held various positions in the dealership. She alleged that several of them, acting in concert, breached fiduciary duties, engaged in negligence, tortiously interfered with her inheritance, and committed related wrongful acts, including civil conspiracy, to benefit themselves at her expense.The Circuit Court of Raleigh County granted partial motions to dismiss some claims against certain defendants with prejudice. Notably, it dismissed all claims against one defendant, Mr. Hopkins, and removed him from the action with an express statement that this dismissal was “final.” The plaintiffs appealed these dismissals to the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia. The Intermediate Court reinstated the civil conspiracy claim against Mr. Hopkins, finding it was sufficiently pled, and reinstated certain claims against other defendants, but did not address whether the order was final as required for appellate review.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed whether the Intermediate Court had proper appellate jurisdiction under the finality requirements of West Virginia Code § 58-5-1 and Rule 54(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the Intermediate Court lacked jurisdiction to review the interlocutory dismissals against Ms. Abrams and Mrs. Hopkins, vacating its decision as to them. However, the Court found the dismissal order as to Mr. Hopkins was sufficiently final to be appealable, affirmed reinstatement of the civil conspiracy claim against him, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hopkins v. Sutphin" on Justia Law

A man was charged with two counts of robbery, one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and one count of presentment of a firearm during the commission of a felony, stemming from a robbery in July 2022. The prosecution’s case included testimony from a victim, a cooperating codefendant, and evidence such as jail phone calls where the defendant appeared to orchestrate attempts to intimidate witnesses. The defendant was also arrested with a nine-millimeter cartridge that matched one recovered at the crime scene. The defendant denied possessing a firearm or participating in witness intimidation, though he admitted being present during the robbery.The Circuit Court of Harrison County presided over a jury trial, where the defendant was convicted on all charges related to the July 2022 robbery but acquitted of charges from a separate incident. During trial, the defendant moved for a mistrial after a detective gave an unresponsive answer referencing threats from associates of the defendant; the court denied the motion, reasoning that the threats were already a central theme of the case and that the answer was not prejudicial. The defendant also did not object to the court’s witness sequestration procedure or request more specific instructions. After conviction, the defendant moved for judgment of acquittal or a new trial, arguing Confrontation Clause violations and improper admission of evidence, but the motion was denied. At sentencing, the court considered the defendant’s extensive criminal record and lack of remorse, imposing consecutive terms totaling seventy-five years.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the convictions and sentences. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial, that any error regarding witness sequestration was waived or unsupported, and that the sentence was neither disproportionate nor based on impermissible factors. The court also found no error in considering the defendant’s lack of remorse or credibility at sentencing. View "State v. McKinney" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was indicted in 2009 on eleven serious charges involving sexual offenses against his four-year-old stepdaughter. After his indictment, the defendant requested a forensic evaluation to determine his competency to stand trial. The first evaluator found that, although the defendant understood the proceedings, he was not competent to assist his lawyer but was likely to become competent with treatment. The trial court then committed him to a state hospital for competency restoration. After several months, a second evaluator found that the defendant had regained competency, provided he remained medicated. At a competency hearing, defense counsel agreed with this finding, and the trial court orally found the defendant competent, though no written order memorializing this finding was entered. Subsequently, the defendant entered into a binding plea agreement, pleading guilty to three counts of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian, or person in a position of trust, and was sentenced to consecutive prison terms.Years later, the defendant sought resentencing to allow a direct appeal, claiming the trial court erred by not making the required statutory findings on competency at the hearing, by failing to inquire further into his competency before accepting his plea, and by not making the required finding of voluntariness before accepting his plea.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed whether the trial court erred in these respects. The court held that the trial court’s oral findings, which incorporated the evaluator’s report, met statutory requirements, and the absence of a written order was not dispositive. The court found no evidence that new questions about competency arose prior to the plea, nor that the court needed to make further inquiry. Finally, while the trial court did not strictly comply with one aspect of the plea inquiry required by Rule 11, the court ruled that any error was harmless because the record showed the plea was voluntarily and knowingly entered. The convictions and sentence were affirmed. View "State v. Mathew M." on Justia Law

The Department of Human Services initiated abuse and neglect proceedings against two parents, alleging that they subjected their teenage children to domestic violence and failed to provide safe housing. At an adjudicatory hearing, both parents stipulated to the allegations and were adjudicated as abusive and neglectful. Ahead of disposition, the Department sought termination of parental rights, while the parents requested improvement periods. After the court denied improvement periods, the parents voluntarily relinquished custodial (but not parental) rights, leading to a subsidized legal guardianship arrangement. The court dismissed the parents as parties and relieved their attorneys. Subsequently, due to the guardian’s change in circumstances, the Department moved to modify the disposition and terminate parental rights.Following their dismissal, the parents were not served notice of subsequent hearings. They filed a pro se motion to restore custody, but were absent from a permanency hearing where the court reinstated them as parties and reappointed counsel. At a later hearing, neither parent appeared, but their attorneys did. The court denied the parents’ motion to restore custody and granted the Department’s motion to modify disposition and terminate parental rights, focusing on changed circumstances and the children’s best interests without making statutory findings required for termination.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and determined that the circuit court committed significant procedural errors by dismissing the parents while they retained parental rights and by failing to follow statutory and rule-based requirements for terminating those rights. The Court held that parents cannot be dismissed as parties if they retain parental rights and that all procedural requirements for disposition, including evidentiary hearings and specific findings, must be met when modifying disposition. The Court vacated the circuit court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with these requirements. View "In re P.F. and M.F.-1" on Justia Law

A regional airport authority undertook a project to remove a hill from land owned by a private property holder. Instead of purchasing the land outright, the parties entered into an agreement allowing the airport authority to remove the hill and, afterwards, to further lower the elevation of the property by overblasting, which would make future development easier for the owner. The airport authority completed the hill removal but failed to perform the overblasting. The landowner then sued for breach of contract, seeking damages for the incomplete work.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia found that the airport authority had breached the agreement and granted partial summary judgment to the landowner on liability. Both sides submitted expert reports concerning the cost to complete the required overblasting, ultimately agreeing that this cost was over $4 million. However, the district court held that the cost of completion was grossly disproportionate to the value of the property and applied the “gross disproportionality” rule, awarding only nominal damages because it found insufficient evidence of the property’s diminution in value. The landowner appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit certified to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia the question of whether, how, and by whom the gross disproportionality rule should be applied in such cases.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that, in breach of construction contract cases, the gross disproportionality rule may be applied to limit damages. The court clarified that gross disproportionality is calculated using the diminution in value approach, measuring the difference in value between the property as is and as it should have been if the contract had been fully performed. The court further held that the breaching party bears the burden of invoking and proving gross disproportionality. If the breaching party fails to meet this burden, the non-breaching party’s proven measure of damages applies. View "Corotoman, Inc. v. Central West Virginia Regional Airport Authority" on Justia Law

After a pick-up truck owned by a married couple was struck by another vehicle that fled the scene—leaving the driver unknown—they sought uninsured motorist (UM) coverage under the wife’s automobile insurance policy. The policy provided both bodily injury and property damage UM coverage. Although the accident was not reported to police within twenty-four hours, the couple promptly notified their insurer and provided information about witnesses and the accident. The insurer began its own investigation but ultimately denied the claim, relying solely on the couple’s failure to report the accident to police within the required timeframe.The Circuit Court of Logan County considered cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the insurer was obligated to provide UM coverage. The court found that the insurance policy required the insurer to demonstrate that it was prejudiced by the couple’s failure to report the accident within twenty-four hours. The court concluded that the insurer failed to prove any prejudice, noting that the couple provided the insurer with witness information and that the insurer delayed its own investigation. The court granted partial summary judgment, ordering the insurer to provide UM coverage.On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the circuit court, holding that the circuit court erred by conducting a prejudice analysis rather than strictly applying the policy language and relevant statute.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case de novo and determined that the insurance policy’s language clearly and unambiguously required the insurer to prove prejudice for denial of coverage due to late reporting. The court held that, absent a showing of prejudice, the failure to report within twenty-four hours was not a valid basis for denying UM coverage. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the Intermediate Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Dobbins v. West Virginia National Auto Insurance Company" on Justia Law