Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

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