Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court terminating Parents' parental rights, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Parents stipulated to having neglected their three minor children. At disposition, the circuit court found that Petitioners' progress was insufficient to regain custody of their children. The court proceeded to terminate Parents' parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that there was no reasonable likelihood the conditions of abuse or neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future, necessitating the termination of Parents' parental rights. View "In re D.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the rulings made by the circuit court determining that (1) home inspectors do not meet the professional services tax exemption in W. Va. Code 11-15-8; (2) home inspection services are not professional services pursuant to West Virginia Code of State Rules section 110-15-8.1.1.1; and (3) the four-part test set forth in section 110-15-8.1.1.1 creates a mandatory four-part test and not a balancing test as determined by the office of Tax Appeals, holding that the circuit court (1) correctly ruled that home inspection services do not qualify as professional services under West Virginia law; (2) did not err in its ruling regarding the four-year degree requirement; but (3) erred in concluding that each part of the four-part test must be met to be classified as professional. View "Keener v. Irby" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the circuit court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that Father's due process rights were violated.On appeal, Petitioner argued that he was not afforded proper notice of the proceedings when he was served by publication in a Boone County newspaper. The record evidence showed that the West Department of Health and Human Resources knew that Petitioner was in North Carolina and not West Virginia and that, by the time it served him by publication in a North Carolina newspaper, the circuit court had already adjudicated Petitioner. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's order, holding that the circuit court erred in adjudicating Petitioner's rights without proper service. View "In re L.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court entering an order extending Petitioner's probation period past five years, holding that there was no error.In 2015, Petitioner was sentenced to two years of incarceration in connection with her plea of guilty to a felony offense and placed on supervised probation for five years. At the time, W. Va. Code 62-12-11 permitted probation period of up to five years, but the statute was amended in 2017 to permit a probation period of up to seven years. When Petitioner committed a probation violation in 2020 the circuit court determined that the 2017 probation statute applied to Petitioner's probation violation and entered an order extending Petitioner's probation period past five years. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the circuit court did not have the authority to extend her sentence to a probationary period beyond five years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no ex post facto violation under the circumstances. View "State v. Metheny" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the order of the circuit court affirming the judgment of the Board of Review affirming the decision of a Labor Dispute Tribunal that certain union members employed at a production plant (Claimants) were not disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits, holding that the lower tribunals erred.In 2012, representatives of Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC and United Steelworkers Local 5668, the union representing the majority of Constellium's employees, met to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement. When the parties could not come to terms Claimants went on strike. After the strike ended, Claimants applied for unemployment compensation benefits. The Tribunal decided that Claimants were not disqualified for benefits under W. Va. Code 21A-6-3(4), the labor dispute provision. The Board and circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the lower tribunals erred in holding that Claimants were not disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits under the labor dispute provision. View "Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC, v. Cooper" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Public Service Commission of West Virginia (PSC) approving the application of one of Ambassador Limousine and Taxi Service (Ambassador) to transfer the common motor carrier certificate held by Classic Limousine Service, Inc. (Classic) to Ambassador, holding that there was no error.SRC Holdings, LLC, doing business as Williams Transport (Williams), appealed the PSC's order approving Ambassador's application to transfer its common motor carrier certificate to Ambassador, arguing that Classic's motor carrier certificate was nontransferable and that Ambassador's proposed use of the certificate would create new competition in the same territory that Williams serviced. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the PSC's reasoning in reaching its decision was legally sound and supported by the evidence. View "SRC Holdings, LLC v. Public Service Commission of W. Va." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.After a hearing, the circuit court found that there was no reasonable likelihood that Father could substantially correct the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future and that the welfare of the child necessitated termination of Father's parental rights. On appeal, Father argued that the circuit court erred by terminating his parental rights instead of imposing a W.Va. Code 49-4-604(c)(5) disposition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights. View "In re L.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court terminating Father's parental rights to his eleven-year-old daughter, holding that the circuit court erred by finding that the statutory grounds for termination were met.For the past seven years, the child in this case had lived with Respondents, her maternal great-grandparents. After Father sought custody of the child, an abuse and neglect petition was filed against him. After a hearing, the circuit court ordered that Father's rights be terminated based on his absence from and lack of involvement in the child's life and concluding that it was in the child's best interest to remain in Father's' custody. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the circuit court erred in terminating Father's parental rights. View "In re S.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting the State's motion to transfer this juvenile case to the criminal jurisdiction of the circuit court pursuant to W. Va. Code 49-4-710, holding that there was no error.Petitioner, the juvenile in this case, was seventeen years and seven months old when he was charged with child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury and child neglect resulting in serious bodily injury. The state police filed a juvenile petition alleging that Petitioner was a delinquent child. The State filed a motion to transfer Petitioner's juvenile proceedings to the circuit court's criminal jurisdiction. The circuit court granted the State's motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in transferring the case to the criminal jurisdiction of the circuit court. View "In re C.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's appeal from an order entered by the Marion County Commission declaring the holographic will of Oras Dye to be void and rescinding Petitioner's appointment as the executor of the Estate of Oras Dye, holding that the circuit court erred.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the fiduciary supervisor and the county commission lacked statutory authority investigate the validity of the will and unilaterally to declare it void after the will had been admitted to probate. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) the judiciary supervisor lacked authority to investigate the validity of the will, which had already been admitted to probate; and (2) the county commission lacked authority to revoke the will's prior admission to probate. View "Dye v. County Commission of Marion County" on Justia Law