Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the circuit court affirming the family court's determination that Respondent was the legal father of Child, holding that the circuit court erred in upholding the family court's paternity determination.The family court concluded that Respondent was the legal parent of Child and conducted both a de facto adoption and de facto termination of parental rights. In affirming the determination of the family court, the circuit court upheld the family court's refusal to admit DNA test results demonstrating that Petitioner was Child's biological father. The Supreme Court vacated the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case, holding (1) the lower courts erred in their decision to disregard the paternity test results; and (2) to the extent that both a de facto adoption and termination of parental rights occurred in family court, the court acted beyond its jurisdiction. View "Corey D. v. Michelle H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting and sentencing Defendant for first-degree robbery, holding that Defendant's assignments of error did not merit relief.Defendant and his girlfriend were indicted for robbing a gambling parlor. Before trial, the girlfriend agreed to testify against Defendant. After Defendant made a series of jailhouse phone calls to his girlfriend, she withdrew her plea agreement and declared she would not testify against Defendant. The circuit court granted the State's motion to admit the girlfriend's recorded statement into evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in granting the State's motion to admit the girlfriend's out-of-court statement under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine; (2) the circuit court properly found that Defendant had engaged in wrongdoing that would support the admission of the girlfriend's out-of-court statement; (3) Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (4) the court's answer to a jury question was not in error. View "State v. Jako" on Justia Law

In this premises liability case, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint, holding that the circuit court plainly erred in making factual determinations based upon assertions in Defendant's motion to dismiss.Plaintiff asserted that, during a visit to Defendant's house, an object on Defendant's front porch stairs caused him to slip, fall, and be injured. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, concluding that because the complaint did not allege facts demonstrating that Plaintiff was not a trespasser on Defendant's porch, then Plaintiff was a trespasser who was owed no duty of care. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court plainly erred in making factual determinations based upon assertions in Defendant's motion to dismiss; and (2) the complaint stated a claim, and dismissal was improper. View "Gable v. Gable" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition seeking to vacate the circuit court's order denying Petitioners' motion to dismiss the underlying suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the circuit court erred in failing to dismiss the claims.Respondents sued Petitioners - various medical providers, pharmacists, and pharmacies - under the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA) asserting claims of medical negligence, pharmacist negligence, and loss of consortium. Petitioners moved to dismiss the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that Respondents did not serve a notice of claim upon Petitioners before filing their complaint. The circuit court denied the motions to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to proceed due to Respondents' failure to comply with the MPLA's pre-suit requirements. View "State ex rel. Hope Clinic, PLLC v. Judge McGraw" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying C.R.'s motion to modify a provision in final adoption orders prohibiting visitation between her adoptive children and R.R., her former husband, holding that this provision in the final adoption orders was an impermissible restriction on C.R.'s parental rights.Prior to and during abuse and neglect proceedings, J.S. and K.S. were in the custody of C.R., their biological aunt, and R.R. When it was discovered that R.R. was a user of illicit drugs C.R. filed for divorce and then filed an amended petition seeking to adopt J.S. and K.S. as a single parent. The circuit court granted the adoptions, but the orders provided that C.R. was enjoined and restrained from permitting contact by the children with R.R. C.R. filed a motion to modify the injunction, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court's attempt to restrict C.R.'s parental rights denied her due process of law. View "In re Adoption of J.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court sentencing Petitioner to a determinate term of give years in the penitentiary for his felony conviction of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and an enhancement of five years under the West Virginia Habitual Offender Act, W. Va. Code 61-7-7(b)(2), for a total determinate term of ten years' imprisonment, holding that the circuit court did not err.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to dismiss his indictment based on the State's use of his previous Indiana conviction was the predicate felony barring his right to possess a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an out-of-state felony controlled substance conviction may serve as the predicate felony conviction necessary for a charged violation of section 61-7-7(b)(2) regardless of the classification of that crime in the State of West Virginia. View "State v. Ward" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition directing the circuit court to transfer venue of this third-party medical negligence action from Tucker County to Monongalia County, holding that this cause of action arose in Monongalia County, and therefore venue for the underlying action, as pleaded, lay solely in Monongalia County.Emily Heckler stabbed her stepmother Marion to death two days after she was discharged from Chestnut Ridge Center in Morgantown, where she had received psychiatric treatment. Mark Heckler, Emily's father and the administrator of Marion's estate, brought this claim in Tucker County under W. Va. Code 55-7B-9b of the Medical Professional Liability Act against Petitioners - West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. and West Virginia University Board of Governors. Heckler filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to Monongalia County. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding (1) under W. Va Code 55-7B-9b, venue is established on where the cause of action arose; and (2) venue is only proper in the county in which the healthcare was rendered with allegedly willful and wanton or reckless disregard of a foreseeable risk of harm to third persons. View "State ex rel. W. Va. University Hospitals, Inc. v. Honorable Nelson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court vacating the finding of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources of maltreatment by Respondent as to her son, holding that the circuit court correctly determined that the conduct engaged in by the lay representative of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) constituted the unauthorized practice of law.The circuit court concluded (1) the decision of the administrative law judgment upholding the DHHR's finding of maltreatment was erroneous because it was not supported by a witness with personal knowledge and was based upon inadmissible DHHR records; and (2) the administrative hearing before DHHR's board of review was conducted in an unlawful manner because DHHR's non-lawyer representative engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding that the administrative proceedings were based upon unlawful procedure brought about by DHHR's lay representative engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. View "W. Va. Department of Health and Human Resources v. C.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the circuit court determining that the civil provisions of the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act (WPCA), W. Va. Code 21-5-3, had not been recognized by the Supreme Court as a substantial public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, holding that the circuit court did not err.Plaintiff brought a retaliatory discharge claim against Defendants after he was terminated from his employment. The circuit court entered partial summary judgment for Defendants as to Plaintiff's claims for the tort of outrage and retaliatory discharge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the undisputed facts supported the circuit court's order granting partial summary judgment. View "Greaser v. Hinkle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit granting summary judgment for Defendants on all claims contained in Plaintiffs' second amended complaint seeking class certification, relief in mandamus, lost wages, and other monetary damages against six State Offices and their respective officeholders, holding that summary judgment was proper.In 2014, the Legislature amended W. Va. Code 6-7-1, changing the pay cycle for state employees from a semi-monthly to a bi-weekly basis. Plaintiffs, state employees who were paid one pay cycle in arrears pursuant to the provisions of section 6-7-1, claimed that when the statue was amended the result was a taking of five days of salary from every state employee in violation of W. Va. Const. Art. III, 10 or, alternatively, the imposition of a second arrearage beyond what is authorized by the statute. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that summary judgment was proper. View "Wilkinson v. W. Va. State Office of the Governor" on Justia Law