Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court affirming the family court's order setting aside a Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) between Petitioner and Respondent on the grounds that it was enforceable because there was no meeting of the minds, holding that there was no error.Petitioner filed for divorce from Respondent on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The parties participated in mediation and entered into the MSA that gave rise to this action. After a hearing, the family court concluded that the parties did not have a "meeting of the minds" in reaching the MSA and determined that the entirety of the MSA was unenforceable. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lower tribunals did not err in finding that the MSA was invalid. View "Donna S. v. Travis S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order denying Father's motion to discharge his child support arrearage, holding that the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion.After the parents of K.S. separated Father was ordered to pay mother child support. Ten years later, K.S. was removed from Mother's home due to a child abuse and neglect petition and placed in Father's custody. When Father took custody the circuit court suspended Father's child support obligation. Father, however, owed almost $25,000 in past unpaid child support and interest. Father filed a motion to discharge the child support arrearage, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly found that it was prohibited from retroactively modifying or canceling child support awards except in limited circumstances not present in this case. View "In re K.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Board of Review affirming the decision of the Office of Judges denying Appellant's request to add C5-6 spondylosis with C6 radiculopathy as a compensable condition, holding that Appellant was entitled to a permanent partial disability award.Appellant suffered a compensable injury to his shoulder, neck and back while working for Respondent. After the injury, Appellant developed cervical radiculopathy. At issue was whether cervical radiculopathy should be added as a compensable condition of Appellant's claim. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded this case with directions to add cervical radiculopathy as a compensable condition, holding that Appellant proved a causal connection between his compensable injury and his cervical radiculopathy. View "Moore v. ICG Tygart Valley, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought to prevent the enforcement of an order of the circuit court that granted the motion filed by Respondents, the maternal grandparents of R.L., for the temporary placement of R.L. in their home, holding that Petitioners, R.L.'s foster parents, established that they were entitled to the writ.After the parental rights of R.L.'s parents were terminated R.L. was placed with Petitioners. The circuit court granted Respondents' motion for temporary placement of R.L., finding that his best interests would be served by achieving permanency through adoption by them. Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the circuit court exceeded its legitimate powers and committed clear error as a matter of law by ordering R.L. to be placed with Respondents. View "State ex rel., D.B. v. Honorable Thomas A. Bedell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the Public Service Commission of West Virginia's (PSC) final order and its order denying the City of Wheeling's (Wheeling) petition for reconsideration and motion to stay, holding that the PSC had jurisdiction over the dispute when it issued its final order and that there was no error in the PSC's decision.After the City of Benwood brought an action challenging Wheeling's revised rate for sewer treatment services the PSC began an investigation. In its final order, the PSC recalculated the revised rate for Wheeling's sewer treatment services. Wheeling then filed a petition for reconsideration and a motion to stay, arguing that the PSC lacked subject matter jurisdiction when it issued the final order. The PSC denied Wheeling's petition and motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. View "City of Wheeling v. Public Service Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought by Thornhill Motor Care, Inc. to prevent the Circuit Court of Mingo County from enforcing its order denying Petitioner's motion to dismiss based on improper venue, holding that Thornhill established that it was entitled to the writ.Moore Chrysler, Inc. brought this action against Thornhill in Mingo County, alleging violations of W. Va. Code 17A-6A-1 to -18 and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Thornhill moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to W. Va. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) on the basis of improper venue, asserting that the proper venue for this lawsuit was in Logan County pursuant to the general venue statute, W. Va. Code 56-1-1. The circuit court denied the motion, basing its ruling on a specific venue statute, W. Va. Code 17A-6A-12(3), which governs declaratory judgment actions brought by new motor vehicle dealers against manufacturers or distributors. Thornhill then sought the writ of prohibition at issue. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the circuit court committed clear legal error in applying section 17A-6A-12(3) rather than section 56-1-1. View "Thornhill Motor Car, Inc. v. Honorable Miki Thompson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative two questions certified by the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, holding that there is no separate cause of action for excessive force by police officers during the course of arrest within the plain language of W. Va. Const. Art. III, 10.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) West Virginia applies to its constitution the rule established in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), and United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997), which requires a constitutional claim that is covered by a specific constitutional provision to be analyzed under the standard specific to that provision and not under substantive due process; and (2) in light of Fields v. Mellinger, 851 S.E.2d 789 (W. Va. 2020), a claim for excessive force by police officers brought under W. Va. Const. art. III, 10 is redundant to a claim brought under Article III, Section 6. View "Stepp v. Cottrell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a petition requested by West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. and West Virginia United Health System, Inc. (WVU Hospitals) to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Court to obtain an extraordinary writ of prohibition in relation to a class action that had been pending since 2013, holding that Petitioners failed to show they were entitled to the writ.In their petition for prohibitory relief WVU Hospitals argued that the circuit court violated the express mandate of the Supreme Court as set forth in State ex rel. West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Gaujot, 829 S.E.2d 54 (W. Va. 2019), by failing to conduct a sufficiently thorough analysis of the factors required for class certification and by failing to give careful consideration to certain ethical issues. The Supreme Court denied the requested writ, holding (1) there was no inadequacy in the circuit court's findings of commonality and ascertainability; and (2) the circuit court was under no obligation to revisit its predominance analysis or the class definition under the Supreme Court's prior mandate. View "State ex rel., West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc v. Honorable Phillip D. Gaujot" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying Resources Limited, LLC's motion to set aside the default judgment in this case, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Resources Limited's motion to set aside the default judgment.New Trinity Coal, Inc. filed a complaint against Resources Limited asserting claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. New Trinity later filed a motion for default judgment, which the circuit court granted. Resources Limited filed a motion to set aside the default judgment. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that there was no evidence of excusable neglect. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Resources Limited's motion to set aside the default judgment should have been granted. View "Resources Limited, LLC v. New Trinity Coal, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the family court denying Father's motion seeking to modify a parenting plan for his daughter, E.M., due to substantial changes in circumstances and awarding attorney fees to Mother, holding that the family court's finding of no substantial change in circumstances was clearly erroneous.When E.M. was two years old, Father and Mother signed an agreed parenting plan. Three years later, Mother filed a petition to modify the parenting plan, alleging that the circumstances had substantially changed due to his job change, Mother's joining the workforce and E.M.'s enrollment in kindergarten. The family court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the family court committed clear error when it found that there was no substantial change in circumstances. View "Jared M. v. Molly A." on Justia Law