Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition prohibiting the circuit court from enforcing its sua sponte order dismissing count three of Respondents' complaint and finding that West Virginia law applied to all of Respondents' bad faith claims but declined to extend the writ to find that Georgia law applies to the entire dispute, holding that a writ of prohibition was not the proper avenue for such relief.After Petitioners denied insurance coverage for certain damages Petitioners filed a declaratory judgment action in the State of Delaware to determine their rights and responsibilities under the relevant insurance policies. Respondents subsequently filed the underlying complaint asserting five separate counts, including breach of contract and bad faith under Georgia law (count three). Petitioners sought to dismiss the West Virginia proceeding. The circuit court denied the motion but, sua sponte, dismissed count three. Petitioners then filed the instant petition. The Supreme Court granted the writ as moulded, holding (1) the circuit court exceeded its lawful authority when it sua sponte dismissed count three of the complaint and held that West Virginia law applied to Respondents' bad faith claims; and (2) this Court declines Petitioners' invitation to find that the Georgia choice-of-law provisions in the policies govern this action. View "State ex rel. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania v. Hummel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of strangulation but reversed in part the circuit court's sentencing order insofar as it imposed a lifetime no-contact protective order, holding that the circuit court lacked the authority to impose the lifetime protective order.Defendant was convicted of strangling his then-wife. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to five years in prison and imposed a lifetime protective order so that Defendant would "never have any contact with the victim." The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction; (2) the circuit court properly admitted evidence of Defendant's prior conduct under W. Va. R Evid. 404(b); and (3) the circuit court committed clear error in imposing a lifetime protective order in the victim's favor. View "State v. Tewalt" on Justia Law

In this discrimination lawsuit brought under the West Virginia Human Rights Act (WVHRA), the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial, holding that the circuit court did not err.The jury found in favor of Defendants on their claims and awarded each of them $475,000. Defendants subsequently filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, or, alternatively, a new trial. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by denying Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to present evidence that Defendants violated the WVHRA; (2) the circuit court did not err by allowing Plaintiffs to call a rebuttal witness to testify about comments a plaintiff made; and (3) the circuit court did not err by denying Defendants' motion for a new trial on the basis that the jury verdict was excessive. View "McClure Management, LLC v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying Grandmother's motion to intervene in the abuse and neglect proceeding regarding her infant grandchild, holding that, under the specific facts of this case, a remand was necessary for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the preference for grandparent placement was in the child's best interest.When the Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition for immediate custody of the child Grandmother requested that she be allowed to intervene in this matter and that the child be placed in her custody. The circuit court denied the motion to intervene and ordered that a foster care placement be maintained regarding placement and custody until further order of the court. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by denying Grandmother a meaningful opportunity to be heard under W. Va. Code 49-1-601(h); (2) the grandparent preference statute provides that adoption by a grandparent is presumptively in the child's best interest; and (3) under the facts of this case, a remand was required for the circuit court to hold an evidentiary hearing in which Grandmother is allowed to fully participate and address whether placement with Grandmother was in the child's best interest. View "In re P.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the disposition order of the circuit court that terminated Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that the circuit court erred by failing to address Mother's alleged status as a "battered parent."The circuit court adjudicated Mother as an abusive and neglectful parent and terminated Mother's parental rights, finding no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect and abuse could be substantially corrected in the near future. On appeal, Mother argued that the circuit court erred by finding that she was abusive and neglectful based upon Father's domestic violence. The Supreme Court vacated the disposition order, holding that, given the circuit court's failure to make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Mother's alleged status as a "battered parent," the case must be remanded for a new adjudicatory hearing. View "In re H.L." on Justia Law