Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court reversing the order of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) affirming the revocation of Respondent's driver's license for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), holding that the circuit court erred.The arresting officer in this case did not attend the OAH hearing. In affirming the revocation, the OAH relied on the officer's DUI information sheet. The circuit court reversed, holding that the Division of Motor Vehicle's (DMV) records, including the DUI information sheet, should not have been admitted into evidence and considered by the OAH. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the OAH was statutorily obligated to receive the DMV's file, including the arresting officer's DUI information sheet, into evidence, and the circuit court's ruling to the contrary was clearly erroneous; and (2) the circuit court erred in ruling that the DMV had the burden of securing the arresting officer's attendance at the OAH hearing. View "Frazier v. Fouch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's motion to dismiss an indictment that alleged eighteen felony sexual offenses against him involving two minors, holding that the three-term rule was not violated in this case.In his motion to dismiss, Petitioner claimed that because three regular terms of court passed without a trial he was entitled to be discharged from prosecution for the offenses charged in the indictment, pursuant to W. Va. Code 62-3-21. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) three unexcused terms of court did not pass without a trial; and (2) therefore, Petitioner's right to be tried without unreasonable delay, pursuant to section 62-3-21, was not violated. View "State v. Paul C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's May 15, 2019 amended adjudicatory order in the underlying abuse and neglect case, holding that the circuit court erred by refusing to find both that Father had committed sexual abuse of A.M. and that Mother was an abusive and/or neglectful parent because she had failed to protect both of her children from such abuse.By the 2019 order, the circuit court determined Father to be an abusive and/or neglectful parent of his two children and concluded that Mother had committed no abuse and/or neglect of the children. On appeal, the children's guardian ad litem argued that the circuit court erred by failing also to adjudicate Father of sexual abuse of the oldest child, A.M. and by not finding Mother to be an abusive and/or neglectful parent based upon her failure to protect the children from such sexual abuse. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the circuit court's 2019 amended adjudicatory order and to enter a new amended adjudicatory order finding that Father sexually abused A.M. and that Mother was an abusive and/or neglectful parent. View "In re A.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of West Virginia Counties Group Self-Insurance Risk Pool, Inc.'s (WVCoRP) claims against Great Cacapon Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. (VFD), holding that the circuit court did not err.When a fire destroyed the building where VFD was housed, the owner of the building, the Morgan County Commission, was reimbursed for the loss by WVCoRP. Seeking to recover the funds it expended, WVCoRP sued the VFD and other parties for negligence. In the process, WVCoRP invoked a contractual right to subrogation. The circuit court determined that the claims against VFD were barred by W. Va. Code 29-12A-13(c), which prohibits claims against political subdivisions made under a right of subrogation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) WVCoRP's claims spring from its coverage contract with the Commission and fall within any plain meaning of subrogation; and (2) section 29-12A-13(c) is not an insurance law of the State from which WVCoRP is exempt. View "West Virginia Counties Group v. Great Cacapon Volunteer Fire Department, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case arising from a phishing/spoofing scheme that caused Plaintiffs to lose $266,069 the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court denying Plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend its previous grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant, holding that Plaintiffs were unable to establish that Defendant breached any duty owed to them.Plaintiffs made an offer on real estate, which was accepted. Plaintiffs intended to pay in cash. To handle the closing, Respondent was retained. Respondent sent wiring instructions for the settlement funds to Lynn Frum, Plaintiffs' real estate agent. Before the closing, an email purportedly from Frum's email address to Plaintiffs started a series of emails between Plaintiffs and the scammer. However, the email address was not the same email address from which the email from Frum was sent that day. Plaintiffs instructed their bank to transfer funds from their account to the scammer's account. When it became apparent that Plaintiffs were victimized by a scammer, they brought suit, alleging legal malpractice. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Respondent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs did not establish that Respondent neglected a reasonable duty. View "Otto v. Catrow Law, PLLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition as moulded preventing the enforcement of the circuit court's order that stayed the Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) administrative revocation of the driver's license of Dalton Watts pending appeal to the circuit court, holding that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to hear this matter.The DMV sought to prohibit the judge of the circuit court from enforcing his order staying the revocation of Watts' driver's license pending appeal, arguing that because there was no contested case in the administrative proceeding the circuit court did not have jurisdiction. The DMV further argued that Watts' requested for relief below should properly be considered a petition for writ of mandamus against the OAH, which was not a party to the appeal. The Supreme Court granted the writ as moulded, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear either the appeal or a petition for writ of mandamus in this action, thus clearly exceeding its authority in acting upon Watts' filing. View "State ex rel. Frazier v. McGraw" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Monongahela Power Company's (Mon Power) motion to dismiss on the basis of statutory immunity, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that a private corporate entity or employer is not entitled to immunity under W. Va. Code 15-5-11(a).Michael Buzminsky, an employee of HSC LLC, was electrocuted and injured when he was sent to perform repairs to the City of Ronceverte's wastewater treatment plant. Michael and Vickie Buzminsky (collectively, Plaintiffs) pled negligence against Mon Power, alleging that, despite its knowledge continued electrical issues, Mon Power left the plant energized. Citing the immunity extended to emergency services workers pursuant to W. Va. Code 15-5-11(a), Mon Power moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over it because it was statutorily immune. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the immunity established for "duly qualified emergency services workers" pursuant to section 15-5-11(a) applies only to individual employees and does not extend to such employees' private employer or corporate entity; and (2) Mon Power does not derivate immunity vicariously through the immunity which its employees enjoy under the statute. View "Monongahela Power Co. v. Buzminsky" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying SWN Production Company's motion to intervene in an action seeking to quiet title to a parcel of property brought by Corey Conley, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law.The underlying action involved competing claims and interests in the mineral rights to Conley's property. SWN asserted that it had interests in oil and gas properties that would be affected by interpretation of the relevant deed. After Conley filed his complaint, SWN filed a motion to intervene, which the circuit court denied. Thereafter, SWN entered into an oil and gas lease with Conley. SWN then filed a second motion to intervene, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the circuit court (1) abused its discretion in determining that the SWN motion to intervene was untimely; and (2) erred as a matter of law in finding that SWN had no property interest relating to the subject of the complaint, that disposition of the civil action would not impair or impede SWN's ability to protect its interests, and that SWN's interests were adequately protected by Conley. View "SWN Production Co., LLC. v. Conley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the disposition order of the circuit court that terminated Mother's parental rights to her children, holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that Mother failed to comply with the terms of her improvement period and in terminating Mother's parental rights on the same grounds.On appeal, Mother argued that the circuit court erred in terminating her parental rights upon finding that she failed successfully to complete the terms of her post-adjudicatory improvement period and that there was no likelihood that the circumstances of abuse and neglect could be remedied in the near future. Specifically, Mother argued that the Department of Health and Human Resources' act of stopping payment for Mother's substance abuse treatments that had been approved for her use as part of her improvement period and family case plan violated the Department's obligations to follow the approved case plan and to make efforts to preserve the family. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that Mother had not complied with her improvement period, and it was clear error for the circuit court to have terminated Mother's parental rights on this basis. View "In re M.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for attempting to solicit a minor using a computer, holding that the warrantless seizure of Defendant's cell phone was reasonable under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement and did not violate Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of his cell phone, arguing that the plain view exception to the warrant requirement did not cover law enforcement's seizure of his phone. The circuit court denied Defendant's motion, apparently based on the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. After Defendant was convicted he appealed, arguing that the temporary warrantless seizure of his cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress. View "State v. Deem" on Justia Law