Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the West Virginia Public Service Commission that invalidated a $50 water disconnect fee charged by the Mason County Public Service District as an unreasonable practice, holding that the substantive result of the Commission's order was not improper.While investigating a complaint about residential water service that had been disconnected for nonpayment, staff at the Commission noticed that, when it computed arrearages, the District charged the water disconnect fee in addition to a $50 reconnect fee. Even though the original complaint made no mention of the fee, the Commission invalidated the disconnect fee as unreasonable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commission acted within its authority in investigating and invalidating the disconnect fee; and (2) the substantive result of the Commission's order was consistent with its precedent and rules. View "Mason County Public Service District v. Public Service Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting a writ of prohibition to prevent the magistrate court from dismissing the charge against Petitioner of animal cruelty in violation of W. Va. Code 61-8-19, holding that the writ of prohibition was properly granted.A county humane officer searched Petitioner's premises pursuant to a warrant and seized several horses and a donkey. Petitioner was charged with animal cruelty under W. Va. Code 61-8-19. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that section 61-8-19 does not apply to livestock. The magistrate court agreed and dismissed the charge. The State sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the magistrate court from dismissing the charge. The circuit court granted the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly held that section 61-8-19(f) establishes an exclusion for farm livestock only when they are "kept and maintained according to usual and accepted standards of livestock...production and management." View "Beasley v. Sorsaia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's motion to reduce her sentence pursuant to W. Va. R. Crim. P. 35(b), holding that the circuit court properly denied the motion as untimely.Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate W. Va. Code 61-5-8(g)(1) and one count of accepting a bribe in violation of W. Va. Code 61-5A-3. Petitioner later filed a first and then a second motion to reduce her sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b). The circuit court denied the first motion on the merits and found that her second motion was not timely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the circuit court's ruling that Petitioner's second motion seeking to reduce her sentence was not timely because it was filed more than 120 days after her sentencing hearing. View "State v. Keefer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decisions of the lower tribunals resolving Claimant's permanent total disability (PTD) claim in his favor after denying his petition to reopen his occupational pneumoconiosis permanent partial disability (OP PPD) claim for further evaluation, holding that the lower tribunals erred in part.At issue in the instant consolidated appeals were Claimant's attempt to reopen his OP PPD claim for further evaluation and his claim for permanent total disability (PTD) due to his various impairments. While Claimant's PTD claim was still being litigated, he unsuccessfully filed two petition to reopen his OP PPD claim. The lower tribunals denied Claimant's reopening petitions but awarded him PTD. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) W. Va. Code 23-4-16(e) does not preclude reopening of a permanent disability claim because another permanent disability claim is pending; and (2) the lower tribunals were not clearly wrong in determining that Claimant was permanently and totally disabled. View "Delbert v. Murray American Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

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