Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed two orders of the circuit court dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint against the City of Shepherdstown and Shepherdstown University for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress, holding that Plaintiff’s appeals were without merit.In its first order, the circuit court granted the City’s motion to dismiss. In its second order, the court granted the University’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The two dismissal orders were nearly identical. The circuit court determined that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to establish a claim of malicious prosecution and a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the complaint failed to set forth sufficient allegations to sustain Plaintiff’s claims against the City and the University. View "Goodwin v. City of Shepherdstown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the circuit court granting declaratory relief in favor Berkeley County on the County’s suit against the City of Martinsburg seeking a ruling that real property owned by the County but located within the City limits was not subject to the City’s zoning ordinances, holding that the circuit court’s order was advisory in that it lacked a justiciable controversy sufficient to confer jurisdiction under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act.In vacating the circuit court’s order, the Supreme Court noted that the complaint revealed no actual, justiciable controversy because there was no specific project, building, or property identified by the County. Rather, the underlying suit claimed to apply generally to all real property owned by the County that may be involved in future, unspecified projects. The Court held that, under these circumstances, the circuit court engaged in an academic exercise, and its order amounted to an advisory opinion and, therefore, must be vacated. View "City of Martinsburg v. Berkeley County Council" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court certifying as final the prior orders that granted summary judgment to Respondents in this civil action arising out of the modification of covenants pertaining to a residential subdivision developed by RJM Holdings, LLC, holding that the genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.On appeal, Petitioners argued that the circuit court erred by granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Respondents were engaged in a joint venture with RJM to develop the subdivision and whether the corporate veils of the respondent businesses should be pierced to hold certain individuals personally liable. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed with respect to the conduct of Respondents and the use of the various business entities to develop the subdivision. View "Dailey v. RJM Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment to Respondents in this nuisance action against a shooting range, holding that because Petitioners’ plea for money damages accrued prior to the 2017 amendment of Va. Code 61-6-23, the Legislature could not retroactively bar Petitioners from pursuing their nuisance claim.Petitioners, who owned land in Frederick County, Virginia, sued Respondents for nuisance in 2015, claiming that noise from Respondents’ shooting ranges substantially and unreasonably interfered with their use and enjoyment of their rural property. In 2017, the legislature amended section 61-6-23 to bar nuisance claims against a shooting range if the range is in compliance with local noise ordinances. The legislature specified that the amendment applied retroactively. The circuit court dismissed Petitioners’ suit, concluding that the nuisance claim was retroactively barred. The Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court correctly applied the amendment to dismiss, retroactively, Petitioner’s nuisance claim seeking injunctive relief; but (2) because Petitioners’ plea for money damages accrued prior to the amendment, Petitioners’ right to pursue those damages was vested. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the circuit court to resume proceedings in Petitioners’ nuisance claim for monetary damages. View "Goldstein v. Peacemaker Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court’s order terminating Petitioner’s parental rights to his three minor children despite concluding three months earlier that Petitioner had not abused or neglected them, holding that the circuit court erred by terminating Petitioner’s parental rights without first adjudicating him as an abusive or neglectful parent.Petitioner was serving a prison sentence for first-degree and was not eligible for parole until 2029. In 2018, the circuit court concluded that, although it explicitly found that Petitioner had not abandoned his children at the earlier adjudicatory hearing, the children’s best interests required termination of Petitioner’s parental rights. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court’s judgment, holding that where the circuit court impermissibly terminated Petitioner’s parental rights without first adjudicating him an abusive or neglectful parent, the circuit court lacked the jurisdiction to enter those portions of its order purporting to terminate Petitioner’s parental rights. View "In re A.P.-1" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted this petition for a writ of prohibition brought by insurers (collectively, Petitioners) seeking to have the Court prohibit enforcement of a ruling by the circuit court that denied Petitioners’ motion for summary judgment against Respondent, holding that the circuit court erred as a matter of law in denying Petitioners’ motion for summary judgment.David Ralph Allen died from injuries he sustained in a motorcycle collision with a car. The car was owned by an auto dealership, and Petitioners provided an insurance policy for the dealership. The garage operations and auto hazard provision of the policy provided a limit of $300,000 in liability coverage. The commercial umbrella provision provided up to $5 million in liability coverage. Respondent, administratrix of Allen’s estate, asserted a declaratory judgment action against Petitioners to determine the amount of insurance coverage available. Petitioners asserted that the umbrella coverage part of the policy did not cover Respondent’s claims against the driver. The circuit court denied Petitioners’ motion for summary judgment on the coverage issue. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the circuit court erred in denying summary judgment for Petitioners on the umbrella coverage issue. View "State ex rel. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Honorable Patrick Wilson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writ of prohibition sought by Petitioner to have the Supreme Court disqualify the Honorable Kurt W. Hall, Judge of the Circuit Court of Upshur County, from presiding over his criminal trial, holding that Judge Hall was not required to recuse himself because the prosecutor intended to call the court clerk as a witness.Petitioner was charged with the felony offense of failure to appear arising from Petitioner’s failure to make an appearance at a pretrial hearing in a previous felony criminal proceeding in which he was the defendant. In preparation for the failure to appear charge, the prosecutor filed a witness list that included the clerk of the circuit court. The prosecutor intended the clerk of court to authenticate records from the prior criminal case. Petitioner moved to recuse Judge Hall because the clerk was going to testify at the trial. Judge Hall denied the motion. Petitioner then filed the instant petition challenging the denial of his recusal motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Judge Hall was not required to recuse himself under the circumstances of this case; and (2) there is no per se disqualification of a presiding judge when the clerk of court is called to testify for the prosecution’s case-in-chief. View "State ex rel. Lewis v. Honorable Kurt W. Hall" on Justia Law

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 in reversing the OAH’s revocation order.In reversing the order of the OAH, the circuit court ruled that there was no “lawful evidence” that Respondent was under the influence of alcohol when he was arrested for DUI, and therefore any secondary chemical test was not lawfully administered. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the OAH’s order was supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that Respondent was lawfully arrested for DUI; and (2) the circuit court abused its discretion by substituting its judgment for that of the OAH. View "Reed v. Winesburg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court terminating Father’s parental rights to his daughter, A.N., when he was otherwise deemed a fit parent suitable to care for his son, C.N., holding that there was plain error in the circuit court’s decision to return C.N. to Father’s care, custody, and control.On appeal, Father argued that the circuit court erred by terminating his parental rights to A.N. because he was otherwise found to be a fit parent through reunification with C.N. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the circuit court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights to A.N. but not to C.N. contained critical inconsistencies between specific factual findings and the dispositions ordered. While the circuit court did not err in deciding to terminate Father’s parental rights to A.N., the circuit court was lacking important evidence necessary for determining Father’s parental fitness to parent C.N. View "In re A.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant in this disability discrimination action brought by Plaintiff alleging that Defendant refused to hire him because of his physical disability, holding that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of intentional disability discrimination.Plaintiff brought this action alleging that Defendant’s refusal to hire him constituted disability discrimination in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W.Va. Code 5-11-1 to -20. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that it declined to hire Plaintiff because a pre-employment physical examination revealed that Plaintiff’s disability prevented him from completing essential responsibilities of the job and that Plaintiff did not ask for any reasonable accommodation that would allow him to complete those essential tasks. Rather, Defendant asserted, Plaintiff merely sought the complete rejection of the physician’s physical examination report. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was entitled to rely upon the physician’s report and that Plaintiff failed pos how that any reasonable accommodations were demanded or even existed. View "Woods v. Jefferds Corp." on Justia Law