Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied a writ of prohibition sought by Petitioner to stop a circuit court's order certifying the underlying case for class action relief, holding that there was no clear legal error in the order.Respondent filed this purported class action alleging asserted causes of action for negligence and seeking various forms of compensatory damages. The circuit court granted Respondent's motion for class certification, and Petitioner petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition to halt the circuit court's class certification order. The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition. On remand, the circuit court again granted class certification. Petitioner then filed a second petition for a writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that there was no clear error as a matter of law in the circuit court's class certification order. View "Jefferson County Foundation, Inc. v. W. Va. Economic Development Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the circuit court dismissing Jefferson County Foundation, Inc.'s suit seeking a declaration that a series of transactions were an unlawful "de facto tax abatement," holding that there was no error.After the West Virginia Economic Development Authority (WVEDA) adopted a resolution to undertake a series of transactions with Roxul USA, Inc. (Rockwool) to finance the construction of a manufacturing plant the Foundation filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the transactions were a de facto tax abatement for Rockwool that violates both statute and the West Virginia Constitution. The business court dismissed the suit with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) WVEDA was statutorily authorized to engaged in the transactions; (2) the transactions were not an exemption from tax; (3) the West Virginia Economic Development Act does not conflict with W. Va. Code 11-3-9; and (4) the transactions did not violate W. Va. Const. art. X, 1. View "Jefferson County Foundation, Inc. v. W. Va. Economic Development Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Defendant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the petition.Defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery, conspiracy, and entry of a dwelling. In his habeas petition, Defendant alleged that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance and that the State violated his constitutional rights by presenting false testimony. The circuit court denied the habeas petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel and that Defendant's second assignment of error lacked merit. View "Goodman v. Searls" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court sentencing Petitioner to an indeterminate term of incarceration rather than a determinate term under W. Va. Code 61-3C-14b(b) in connection with his conviction of solicitation of a minor, holding that that Petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the imposition of the corrected sentence.Petitioner pled guilty to one count of solicitation of a minor. Upon sentencing, the circuit court misread the statute and erroneously sentenced Petitioner to an indeterminate term of incarceration rather than a determinate term. The Supreme Court reversed the sentencing order. On remand, the circuit court imposed a sentence within the parameters of the statute. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the circuit court imposed a more severe sentence than the one originally imposed in violation of his constitutional right to due process. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a circuit court does not violate a defendant’s due process right to appeal when it corrects a sentence that is void ab initio by imposing a more severe punishment that comports with the penalty provided for in the applicable statute. View "State v. Riffle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Petitioner's conviction for first-degree murder and sentence of life imprisonment, holding that the circuit court erred in its determination that evidence regarding Petitioner's conviction for another murder was admissible at his trial pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b).On review of Petitioner's convictions, the Supreme Court concluded that an incomplete record did not allow for a determination of whether Petitioner's right to a speedy trial had been violated. On remand, the circuit court ruled that Petitioner's right to a speedy trial was not violated. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded this case for a new trial, holding that the circuit court erred in admitting the 404(b) evidence and that a limiting instruction given to the jury was not effective to preclude prejudice as a result of the error. View "State v. Combs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court granting injunctive relief requiring Petitioners to remove a bridge and road that Respondent maintained after Petitioners brought this action for alleged flood damages caused to Respondent's property as a result of the construction of the road and bridge, arguing that they impeded the flow of Little Grave Creek, holding that the circuit court erred.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court properly found that Respondent had good cause for a delay in service; (2) the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that construction of the road and bridge was the proximate cause of Respondent's damages; (3) the circuit court erred in denying Petitioners' motion for summary judgment on the basis of the relevant statute of limitations; and (4) the circuit court's order granting injunctive relief failed to contain appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law. View "Reilley v. Board of Education of the County of Marshall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the circuit court dismissing the underlying abuse and neglect petition, holding that the circuit court's conduct during in camera interview of the children violated the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings, the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, and Supreme Court precedent.The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources filed an abuse of neglect petition alleging that two minor children may have been sexually abused by Father. During the adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court conducted in camera interview of the children and accused the children of lying. The guardian ad litem for the children was present and failed to object to the court's conduct. Thereafter, the circuit court dismissed the abuse and neglect petition. The Supreme Court vacated the order below and remanded the matter for further proceedings before a different circuit judge with a new guardian ad litem, holding (1) the circuit court substantially disregarded and frustrated the procedures established by the relevant rules; and (2) the guardian ad litem's representation of the children was deficient. View "In re K.B.-R" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court granting Respondents' motion for partial summary judgment in this insurance dispute, holding that the circuit court's order failed to set forth factual findings sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.State Farm Fire and Casualty Company appealed the circuit court's partial summary judgment, arguing that the circuit court erred in finding coverage for a bat infestation under a rental dwelling policy it issued to Respondents. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded this action to the circuit court for further development, holding that the circuit court's order was not adequately set forth, leaving the Court unable to determine whether Respondents' motion for partial summary judgment was correctly granted. View "State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Nathaniel Realty, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of circuit court denying in part Petitioners' motions for summary judgment asserting that they were entitled to qualified immunity, holding that the circuit court correctly denied, in part, the motions for summary judgment on the ground that there remained outstanding issues of material fact.After a suspicious fire damaged the home of Respondents Tammy and Michael Wratchford Petitioner Ronald Ayersman, in his official capacity as an assistant state fire marshal, investigated the fire on behalf of Petitioner West Virginia State Fire Marshal's Office, after which Ayersman concluded that the fire was caused by arson committed by Tammy. A grand jury, however, declined to indict Tammy, and she Michael subsequently brought this suit alleging, inter alia, negligence, violations of the West Virginia Governmental Ethics Act, and tortious interference. Petitioners moved for summary judgment. The district court denied the motions in part. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly denied in part the summary judgment motions on the ground that there remained outstanding issues of material fact. View "Ayersman v. Wratchford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court determining that Petitioner's predecessors in interest (the Stephens) were not bona fide purchasers when they acquired the subject property at a trustee's sale, holding that the circuit court was clearly wrong.Petitioner, the owner of the subject property, sought a declaratory judgment that the property, which was purchased by her predecessors in interest at a trustee's sale following the original owner's default on a loan secured by a deed of trust, was free of covenants or restrictions that post-dated the execution of the deed of trust. The circuit court found that Respondents had an easement on the property, concluding that neither Petitioners nor her predecessors in interest were bona fide purchasers of the acreage and that Respondents had an easement in the subject property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court was clearly wrong in determining that the Stephens were not bona fide purchasers when they acquired the property at a trustee's sale; and (2) Petitioner took the property free and clear of all prior covenants and restrictions that post-dated the execution of the deed of trust. View "Goddard v. Hockman" on Justia Law