Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In this appeal from the circuit court’s reversal of a permanent alimony award, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court and remanded the case for reinstatement of the family court’s order awarding Wife permanent alimony in the amount of $1,500 per month, holding that the circuit court’s overturning of the family court’s findings was in error.The family court ordered Husband to pay permanent alimony to Wife in the amount of $1,500 per month. The circuit court reversed the award and remanded to the family court for calculation of spousal support “in accordance” with its order. On remand, the family court ordered Husband to pay Wife $439.02 per month. The circuit court refused Wife’s appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in overturning the family court’s findings and inexplicably replaced the family court’s credibility determinations with determinations of its own. View "Cowger v. Cowger" on Justia Law

The circuit court erred in applying the grandparent preference contained in W. Va. Code 49-4-114(a)(3) when it permanently selected the grandparents of twins K.E. and K.E. for permanent placement.The twins were in foster care when the circuit court terminated the parental rights of their biological parents. Both the twins’ foster parents and their paternal grandparents sought to provide the twins with a permanent home. The circuit court ruled that the twins should be permanently placed with their grandparents. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the best interest of the twins were best served by permanent placement with their foster parents, not their grandparents. View "In re K.E." on Justia Law

The circuit court erred in applying the grandparent preference contained in W. Va. Code 49-4-114(a)(3) when it permanently selected the grandparents of twins K.E. and K.E. for permanent placement.The twins were in foster care when the circuit court terminated the parental rights of their biological parents. Both the twins’ foster parents and their paternal grandparents sought to provide the twins with a permanent home. The circuit court ruled that the twins should be permanently placed with their grandparents. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the best interest of the twins were best served by permanent placement with their foster parents, not their grandparents. View "In re K.E." on Justia Law

In this action brought by Plaintiff alleging a deliberate intent claim and violations of the West Virginia Human Rights Act (Act) the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s rulings and remanded the case for entry of an order dismissing the action and compelling arbitration.Plaintiff instituted this civil action against Hampden Coal, LLC, his employer, and his supervisor alleging a deliberate intent claim related to his workplace injury and two violations of the Act arising from his demotion. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement Appellant signed as a condition of his employment. The circuit court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss and refused to compel arbitration, concluding, among other things, that the arbitration agreement was invalid because it lacked consideration and was both substantively and procedurally unconscionable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) more stringent or different standards do not apply to consideration of arbitration agreements in the employment context; (2) the parties’ agreement to arbitrate their disputes served as consideration for the agreement; (3) the agreement was neither substantively or procedurally unconscionable; (4) Plaintiff’s claims did not fall outside the scope of the agreement; and (5) the circuit court erred in finding that the agreement was an employment contract. View "Hampden Coal, LLC v. Varney" on Justia Law

J.G. was born at 34 weeks’ gestation with drugs in his system. Noting mother’s prior involuntary termination of parental rights, the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed an abuse and neglect petition. J.G. was placed in foster care with petitioners in February 2015 and remains there. J.G. requires medical monitoring and treatment. The birth parents canceled multiple visits, frequently fell asleep during visits, failed to return calls from DHHR, and had multiple positive drug screens. The circuit court granted a six-month improvement period. DHHR indicated that the improvement period was a failure. Subsequent psychological evaluations indicated little likelihood that the parents would improve. The court granted another six-month improvement period, during which the parents were evicted, had positive drug tests, and engaged in a physical altercation. The court granted two more six-month improvement periods. During an overnight visit, a CPS worker arrived at the parents’ home to pick up J.G and observed large amounts of blood. She found J.G., screaming and in a saturated diaper, on the bed beside his father, who was unresponsive. Mother “was high as a kite.” The guardian ad litem and DHHR requested termination. Despite observations that the infant was bonded with the foster family and that returning J.G., to the parents “could be traumatizing” and continuing positive drug screens, the court ordered transition of J.G., to the parents’ custody. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed. The circuit court failed to comply with the requirements of West Virginia Code 49-4-610 and the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect and abused its discretion in failing to terminate parental rights. View "In re: J.G., II" on Justia Law

In this abuse and neglect proceeding, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s adjudicatory order finding Father to be an abusing and neglectful parent but set aside the court’s order that adopted the parenting plan recommended by the children’s guardian ad litem.This proceeding concerned three children and their biological parents. Father appealed from the adjudicatory order finding him to be an abusing and neglectful parent and also appealed from a later order adopting the parenting plan recommended by the guardian ad litem. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the adjudicatory order was supported by clear and convincing evidence that Father was an abusing and neglectful parent in relation to the children; but (2) in view of updates to Rule 11(j) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure, the circumstances regarding the children changed to the extent that the parenting plan was no longer viable in the absence of additional findings by the circuit court. View "In re J.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court ordering that Joseph Pompeo’s driver’s license be restored after its revocation.Pompeo’s driver’s license was revoked when, during a traffic stop, police officers observed that Pompeo appeared to be under the influence of alcohol and Pompeo refused to submit to a secondary chemical test. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the revocation. The circuit court ordered that Pompeo’s driving privileges be restored on several grounds. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the reinstatement of the administrative order revoking Pompeo’s driver’s license, holding (1) the circuit court erred by disregarding the evidence upon which the OAH relied and abused its discretion in substituting its judgment for that of the fact-finder below; and (2) the OAH’s findings were not clearly wrong. View "Reed v. Pompeo" on Justia Law

In this dispute between retailers and direct competitors in the gas station and convenience store market, the circuit court correctly determined that W. Va. Code 47-11A-6(a) does not include taxes in the calculation of a retailer’s cost under the West Virginia Unfair Practices Act.Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants alleging that Defendants had violated the Act by selling gasoline below cost. Both parties moved for summary judgment seeking a determination as to whether section 47-11A-6(a) includes taxes within the calculation of a retailer’s cost. The circuit court concluded that the calculation of a retailer’s cost does not include tax and awarded summary judgment to Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute does not include taxes in the calculation of a retailer’s cost. View "Alan Enterprizes LLC v. Mac's Convenience Stores LLC" on Justia Law

In this dispute between retailers and direct competitors in the gas station and convenience store market, the circuit court correctly determined that W. Va. Code 47-11A-6(a) does not include taxes in the calculation of a retailer’s cost under the West Virginia Unfair Practices Act.Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants alleging that Defendants had violated the Act by selling gasoline below cost. Both parties moved for summary judgment seeking a determination as to whether section 47-11A-6(a) includes taxes within the calculation of a retailer’s cost. The circuit court concluded that the calculation of a retailer’s cost does not include tax and awarded summary judgment to Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute does not include taxes in the calculation of a retailer’s cost. View "Alan Enterprizes LLC v. Mac's Convenience Stores LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed two orders of the circuit court unsealing an index of 349 documents and directing the Attorney General to produce eighty-nine of those documents.Steel of West Virginia, Inc. (Steel) brought this action to enforce its request for production of material under West Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Attorney General received the 349 documents at issue in connection with his investigative powers under the West Virginia Antitrust Act regarding the proposed merger of St. Mary’s Medical Center, Inc. and Cabell Huntington Hospital, Inc. The Attorney General and St. Mary’s contended that the index of the 349 documents and the eighty-nine documents to be produced were exempt from disclosure. The circuit court awarded the production of the index as a sanction against the Attorney General for sharing part of the index with the Federal Trade Commission. The Supreme Court held (1) the sanction was inappropriate; and (2) the eighty-nine documents were not subject to rpdocution because the statutory exemption set forth in W.Va. Code 29B-1-4, which incorporates the confidentiality provisions of the Antitrust Act. View "St. Mary's Medical Center, Inc. v. Steel of West Virginia" on Justia Law