Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition requested by Petitioner, Municipal Water Works, to challenge a circuit court order granting Respondents' motion for class certification, holding that the order granting class certification must be vacated because the circuit court failed to conduct a thorough analysis of the four class certification prerequisites in Rule 23(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure.Respondents, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint against Municipal Water alleging that each putative class members was a customer of Municipal Water and, as a result, was exposed to illness causing pollutants in their water supply. Respondents filed a motion for class certification, which the circuit court granted. Petitioner then sought a writ of prohibition arguing that the circuit court's order did not contain a "thorough analysis" explaining how Respondents satisfied the four prerequisites contained in Rule 23(a). The Supreme Court agreed and granted the writ, holding that the circuit court's order did not contain a thorough analysis of the Rule 23(a) factors. View "State ex rel., Municipal Water Works v. Honorable Derek Swope" on Justia Law

In this abuse and neglect proceeding the Supreme Court reversed the dispositional order of the circuit court giving primary custody of two children to Father following his successful completion of an improvement period, holding that the circuit court failed to give proper consideration to the custodial, decision-making and limiting factors set forth in W. Va. Code 48-9-206, 207, and 209.In awarding primary custody to Father the circuit court found that the award was in the children's best interests based upon their preference to reside with Father and the court's conclusion that Father provided a more stable environment for the children. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter for consideration of the appropriate statutory factors, holding that the circuit court erred in deferring to the children's purported preference, as expressed by third parties, to reside with Father because the court failed to give due consideration to the factors set forth in section 48-9-206, 207, and 209 in making its custodial allocation. View "In re T.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the circuit court granting Plaintiff's writ of prohibition to stay further hearing on the revocation of his driver's license, holding that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and should have dismissed the petition for writ of prohibition.In response to Plaintiff's petition filed in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) asserted that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because jurisdiction for extraordinary writs related to records maintained by the DMV is only proper in Kanawha County. The circuit court granted the writ of prohibition, concluding that the Legislature's recent amendment to W. Va. Code 14-2-2 made jurisdiction proper in Monongalia County. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court's order was void because section 14-2-2 is a venue statute and W. Va. Code 53-1-2 governs subject matter jurisdiction. View "Holley v. Feagley" on Justia Law

In this termination of parental rights proceeding the Supreme Court vacated the verbal ruling of the circuit court regarding Parents' rights to A.A. and affirmed the portions of the court's order terminating the parental rights to Z.A., S.A. and J.A.-2, holding that the court erred when it did not perform a best interests analysis with regard to the disposition of Parents' rights to A.A. and by failing to enter a dispositional order that addressed A.A.The circuit court terminated Parents' parental rights to Z.A, S.A., and J.A.-2 on the basis of physical and educational neglect. As to Parents' two other children, J.A.-1 and A.A., the circuit court made a verbal ruling to leave intact parents' rights but did so without having performed any analysis of these children's best interests. Further, the court failed to enter a dispositional order fo J.A.-1 and A.A. J.A.-1 reached the age of majority during the appeal period and was no longer a subject of the abuse and neglect case. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court's termination of parental rights as too Z.A., S.A., and J.A.-2, holding that there was no error on the part of the circuit court; but (2) vacated the ruling leaving intact parents' rights to A.A., holding that remand was required for further proceedings. View "In re J.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought by Municipal Water Works to challenge an order issued by the circuit court granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, holding that the circuit court failed to conduct a thorough analysis of the class prerequisites in W. VA. R. Civ. P. 23(a), and therefore, the order granting class certification must be vacated.Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a class of individuals that were customers of Municipal Water, filed a complaint in the circuit court alleging that each putative class member was exposed to illness-causing pollutants in their water supply. After a hearing, the circuit court entered an order granting class certification. The Supreme Court vacated the order, holding that the circuit court's order did not contain a thorough analysis of the Rule 23(a) factors. View "State ex rel. Municipal Water Works v. Honorable Derek C. Swope" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court convicting Petitioner of six counts of sexual assault in the second degree, seven counts of sexual abuse by a custodian, and one count of sexual abuse in the first degree and sentencing Petitioner to a total of 131 to 295 years in prison, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief on any of his assignments of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err in finding the State properly authenticated its exhibit of Facebook Messenger text messages; (2) the circuit court did not err in denying Petitioner's motion for judgment of acquittal; and (3) Petitioner was not entitled to relief on any of his remaining claims. View "State v. Benny W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss and remanded this case to the circuit court for the entry of an order dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Defendant, holding that the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Defendant.Plaintiff was injured while working for Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. and was subsequently terminated. Defendant, Old Dominion's third-party claims administrator, denied Plaintiff's claim for workers' compensation benefits on behalf of Old Dominion. Plaintiff sued Defendant. Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims, but the circuit court judge denied the motion. The Supreme Court granted Defendant's motion for a writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court exceeded its legitimate powers when it refused to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Defendant. View "State ex rel. Gallagher Bassett Services v. Honorable Carrie Webster" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court refusing Petitioners' petition for injunctive relief and determining that an easement did not exist across certain property, holding that Petitioners failed to establish either a prescriptive easement or an implied easement.In this dispute among five adult siblings, Petitioners, four siblings, filed a petition for injunctive relief against the fifth sibling, who owned the property at issue, claiming that an easement was necessary for them to access their property. The circuit court refused the injunction, concluding (1) Petitioners' use of the property was permissive so that Petitioners failed to prove adverse use required for a prescriptive easement; and (2) Petitioners failed to establish an implied easement because Petitioners offered no credible evidence of strict or reasonable necessity of prior use. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the superior court's judgment. View "Cantrell v. Cantrell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that W.Va. Code 61-11-23(b) of the Juvenile Sentencing Reform Act did not apply retroactively to Petitioner's sentence.Petitioner, who was sixteen years old at the time he committed the offenses, was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree and sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian, or person in a position of trust. The circuit court sentenced Petitioner to an aggregate sentence of thirty-five to seventy-five years of incarceration and fifty years of supervised release. The court further required Petitioner to register as a sexual offender for his lifetime. After the legislature enacted the Act, Petitioner brought this habeas corpus proceeding. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court erred in concluding that the legislature did not intend for section 61-11-23(b) to be applied retroactively; (2) Petitioner failed to establish that the State provided false and perjured testimony; and (3) Petitioner's sentence was not disproportionate. View "Christopher J. v. Ames" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's motion for a new trial and renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that the verdict in this case should be upheld.Petitioner failed a medial professional liability action against Respondents alleging that Respondents were negligent and breached the applicable standards of care by failing to timely deliver an infant, thereby resulting in the infant's death. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Respondents, and the circuit court denied both of Petitioner's post-trial motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding, among other things, that, contrary to Petitioner's arguments on appeal, the evidence at trial did not constitute a clear case of medical negligence, and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. View "Smith v. Clark" on Justia Law