Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court reversing a decision of the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board that had dismissed, as untimely filed, a grievance filed by Respondent, holding that there was no basis in the record for the circuit court to find that the Board improperly dismissed Respondent's grievance as untimely filed.Respondent filed a grievance alleging that he should have been appointed for a position in the Highway Engineer classification with the West Virginia Division of Highways (DOH). The Board granted DOH's motion to dismiss the grievance as untimely filed. The circuit court reversed, finding that the grievance was timely filed under the discovery rule. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the time period for filing an employment selection grievance under W. Va. Code 6C-2-4(a)(1) begins when the grievance is unequivocally notified of the selection decision by the employer, not when the grievance discovers facts about the person selected for the position. View "West Virginia Division of Highways v. Powell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought by Petitioners to halt the litigation of Respondents' breach of contract and related tort claims against them in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County for lack of venue, holding that Respondents failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that venue for their civil action properly lay in Wyoming County.In this action involving an alleged breach of a purchase agreement, Respondents filed a complaint alleging six causes of action against Petitioners. In the complaint, Respondents stated that venue was proper in Wyoming County because the parties conducted business in Wyoming County. Petitioners moved to dismiss for lack of venue, arguing that the operative business relationship between the entities took place entirely within Kanawha County. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, and Petitioners filed this petition for a writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that Respondents failed to establish proper venue in Wyoming County under the framework of W. Va. Code 56-1-1. View "State ex rel. Ferrell v. Honorable Warren R. McGraw" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of prohibition requested by Petitioners seeking to have the circuit court dismiss Nadine Rice's tort action with prejudice under W. Va. R. Civ. P. 41(b), holding that Petitioners failed to show that the circuit court's order was whether clearly erroneous as a matter of law or a flagrant abuse of its discretion.Rice sued Petitioners alleging several claims arising from her alleged negligent ejection from her home. For various reasons, Rice's case did not progress. Petitioners later moved the circuit court to dismiss the case with prejudice. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that good cause justified the delay and that the delay had not prejudiced Petitioners. Petitioners then sought an extraordinary writ to prevent the circuit court from acting beyond what they argued were the court's legitimate powers. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Petitioner's did not show that this case was an extraordinary case requiring an extraordinary remedy. View "State ex rel. Johnson & Freedman, LLC v. Honorable Warren R. McGraw" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court sentencing Petitioner to two terms of one to five years of imprisonment in connection with his conviction of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance, holding that the circuit court did not err in not suppressing evidence of an audio/video recording of one of the two drug transactions.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the circuit court erred in refusing to suppress evidence related to one of the drug transactions on the grounds that the evidence was obtained as a result of a recorded transaction within his home without an electronic intercept order issued prior to the transaction. Petitioner argued that this conduct violated State v. Mullens, 650 S.E.2d 169 (W. Va. 2007), and was not in compliance with the Electronic Interception of Conduct or Oral Communications in the Home Act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that exigent circumstances prevented law enforcement officers from obtaining an order authorizing the use of an audio/video recorder in Petitioner's home. View "State v. Howells" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court resentencing Petitioner to not less than ten nor more than twenty-five years in prison, holding that the sentence did not shock the conscience and was not disproportionate to the crime.For appeal purposes, Petitioner was resentenced subsequent to his guilty plea to a charge of failure to provide sex offender registration change of information. In this appeal, Petitioner argued that his sentence shocked the conscience and was disproportionate to the offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner's sentence does not shock the conscience; and (2) Petitioner failed to establish that his sentence is disproportionate. View "State v. Patrick C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court affirming the family court's order denying Michael Campbell's motion to modify his spousal support obligation to his former wife, Joanna Campbell, holding that the family court erred by denying Michael's petition to modify his spousal support award and that the circuit court erred by affirming the family court's ruling.On appeal, Michael argued that he was entitled to modification of his alimony obligation because his current monthly spousal support obligation was greater than his currently monthly retirement income and that the lower courts erred by refusing to modify his spousal support obligation to an amount commensurate with his ability to pay. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lower courts erred by refusing to grant Michael's modification petition. View "Campbell v. Campbell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the final order of the circuit court reversing the order of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) revoking Respondent's driver's license for driving under the influence (DUI), holding that the OAH's findings were not clearly wrong and that the circuit court abused its discretion in substituting its judgment for that of the fact finder.After unsuccessfully challenging the revocation of her license with the OAH Respondent appealed to the circuit court. The court found that that OAH clearly erred in weighing the facts and in applying the law and legal standards and that OAH's final order was an abuse of discretion and was clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for reinstatement of the administrative order revoking Respondent's driver's license, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion when it substituted its own view of the evidence for that of the OAH. View "Frazier v. S.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writ of prohibition sought by the West Virginia Regional Jail Authority (WVRJA) seeking to have the Court prohibit the circuit court from enforcing its order denying the WVRJA's motion to dismiss Bobbi Bryant's complaint against it as time barred, holding that WVRJA failed to demonstrate that the circuit court's order was clearly erroneous.The WVRJA moved to dismiss Bryant's complaint on the sole basis that the claims asserted against it were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The circuit court found that because the statute of limitations was appropriately tolled as to the co-defendant and because Bryant alleged a civil conspiracy cause of action the statute of limitation as to the co-defendant was imputed to the WVRJA. The WVRJA then filed a petition for writ of prohibition with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the circuit court did not commit clear legal error in denying WVRJA's motion to dismiss the complaint as time barred, based on the applicable statute of limitations, such that a writ of prohibition is warranted. View "State ex rel. Regional Jail Authority v. Honorable Carrie Webster" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered in the negative a question certified by the federal district court by concluding that W. Va. Code 61-3-24 does not constitute a substantial public policy of the State of West Virginia that would support a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy pursuant to Harless v. First National Bank, 162 W.Va. 116, and its progeny.Plaintiff filed a whistleblower claim against her employer under the Dodd-Frank Act, 15 U.S.C. 78u-6, but the United States Supreme Court's decision in Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, __ U.S. __ (2018), rendered Plaintiff's claim not viable. Plaintiff then argued that her only recourse was a common law retaliatory discharge claim under Harless, alleging that she was discharged in violation of the substantial public policy set forth in W. Va. Code 61-3-24. The district court found that a certified question was appropriate. The Supreme Court answered that section 61-3-24 does not constitute a substantial public policy under Harless to protect an employee of a non-public employer who claims to have been retaliated against for reporting suspected criminal conduct to the appropriate authority. View "Blanda v. Martin & Seibert, LC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a question certified by the federal district court by concluding that the term "person" as used in the wrongful death statute, W. Va. Code 55-7-5 and 55-7-6, does not include an ectopic embryo or an ectopic fetus.Three years after Defendant performed a bilateral tubal litigation on Plaintiff for permanent sterilization purposes doctors discovered a live ectopic pregnancy located in Plaintiff's left fallopian tube. Because the ectopic pregnancy had no chance of resulting in a live birth and would result in Plaintiff's death if allowed to continue, the ectopic embryo was removed. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and as the administratrix of the estate of her ectopic embryo, and her husband filed suit against Defendant, asserting wrongful death. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The federal district court then certified two questions to the Supreme Court for resolution. The Supreme Court answered the second question, rendering the first question moot, holding that the term "person" as used in the wrongful death statute does not include an ectopic embryo or an ectopic fetus. View "Saleh v. Damron" on Justia Law