Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In this dispute between the West Virginia State Lottery, the Lottery Commission, the Lottery Director (collectively, the State Lottery) and certain entities issued permits to operate limited video lottery game terminals (Permit Holders), the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the circuit court denying the State Lottery’s denial of its motion to dismiss on the grounds that it waived its sovereign and qualified immunity defenses. The dispute arose after the State Lottery instructed the Permit Holders that they would be required to use a different software program at their expense. The Permit Holders alleged a taking without just compensation, deprivation of property without due process, and civil conspiracy. The Supreme Court held (1) the State Lottery did not waive its rights to sovereign and qualified immunity; and (2) because the circuit court did not make any findings or inquiries relating to qualified immunity, this case must be remanded for a determination of whether the State Lottery was qualifiedly immune under the circumstances. View "West Virginia Lottery v. A-1 Amusement, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital Corporation’s (Hospital) motion to dismiss Dr. Tuan Nguyen’s (Physician) claims alleging that the Hospital discriminated and retaliated against him for reporting patient safety concerns. The Hospital sought dismissal under W. Va. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that Physician’s claims were linked to its decision not to reappoint him to its medical staff, and therefore, it enjoyed qualified immunity pursuant to Mahmoodian v. United Hospital Center, Inc., 404 S.E. 2d 750 (W. Va. 1991). The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Physician’s claims were distinguishable from Mahmoodian; and (2) accordingly, Physician sufficiently pled his causes of action to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. View "Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital Corp. v. Nguyen" on Justia Law

The circuit court erred in vacating Respondent’s conviction for felony murder and granting him a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence in the form of serology test results on a $20 bill, a $5 bill, and a $1 bill. The test results linked the money to the victim during Respondent’s underlying trial. In 1994, the serology evidence at issue was ordered to be retested, and the circuit court made specific findings regarding the evidence in a prior omnibus proceeding brought by Respondent. In 2016, the circuit court granted Respondent a new trial after an omnibus hearing. Specifically, the circuit court found that the previously adjudicated 1994 DNA results concerning the serology evidence constituted “newly discovered evidence.” The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for reinstatement of the 1987 conviction for felony murder, holding that even if the serology evidence were excluded, there was sufficient evidence presented to the jury to support Respondent’s conviction. View "Terry v. Ward" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting mandamus relief to Lieutenant Gregory Scolapio and finding that Scolapio was entitled to a hearing before the Harrison County Civil Service Commission for Deputy Sheriffs regarding the decision of Robert Matheny, Sheriff of Harrison County, to terminate his employment. The court held (1) the circuit court did not err in determining that Scolapio was entitled to receive both a pre-disciplinary hearing before the hearing board and a de novo evidentiary hearing before the Commission; and (2) the circuit court did not err in permitting the Sheriff to intervene in the proceedings. View "Matheny v. Scolapio" on Justia Law

Petitioners, former shareholders of Kay Company and Kay Co., LLC, appealed orders entered by the circuit court in which summary judgment was granted to Respondent, Petitioners’ former legal counsel, in connection with claims Petitioners filed against Respondent. Petitioners challenged the circuit court’s (1) ruling that a settlement reached by all but one of Petitioners with the IRS prevented them from establishing causation and damages on any of their claims, (2) finding that there were no factual issues in need of resolution, and (3) ruling that the lack of settlement with the IRS precluded Jennie Graham, executrix of the estate of James Graham, prevented her from asserting claims against Respondent. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) erred in reasoning that the settlement with the IRS prohibited Petitioners from going forward on all of their claims; (2) erred in ruling that the lack of a settlement with the IRS precluded Graham from asserting any claims against Respondent; and (3) did not err in its rulings with regard to detrimental reliance and joint venture. The Supreme Court remanded this matter to the circuit court to permit Petitioners to proceed on their claims of legal malpractice, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. View "Kay v. McGuireWoods, LLP" on Justia Law

The circuit court did not err in refusing to dismiss a former employee’s failure to rehire claim, filed only nine months after the alleged failure to rehire, because the claim was not barred by the relevant statute of limitation.Plaintiff, who worked for Defendants, surface coal mine operators, was excused from work due to serious heart problems. Defendants later “idled” the surface mine and dismissed all employees from work. When Defendants again began mining coal, Plaintiff sought to be re-employed by Defendants but was not rehired. Nine months after being denied reemployment, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants, alleging that Defendants’ failure to re-employ him were based upon his age and disability in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The circuit court found that Plaintiff’s complaint contained allegations of both wrongful termination and failure to hire and dismissed Plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim as time-barred. The court, however, concluded that the failure to rehire claim was not barred by the statute of limitation because it was a separate and new act of discrimination. The Supreme Court denied Defendants’ request for a writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for failure to rehire. View "State ex rel. Raven Crest Contracting, LLC v. Honorable William S. Thompson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for writ of prohibition seeking to prevent enforcement of the circuit court’s order suspending Demetrius Moore’s sentence, holding that the circuit court improperly applied sentencing credit for time served on a prior, unrelated charge.Moore was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two to fifteen years in connection with his plea of guilty to one count of delivery of a controlled substance and second offense felony recidivism. Moore filed a motion for reconsideration seeking to have his sentence suspended. The circuit court ultimately granted the motion and applied credit for time served for a prior, unrelated domestic battery charge. The Supreme Court granted the State’s requested writ, holding (1) W. Va. Code 61-11-24 allows for the granting of credit for time served only on a sentence imposed by the court for the term of confinement “awaiting such trial and conviction”; and (2) in this case, the circuit court directly contradicted the language of the statute and court precedent. View "State ex rel. State v. Honorable David J. Sims" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court awarding guardianship of A.C., a twelve-year-old girl, to A.C.’s grandmother, A.H. Petitioner, A.C., through her guardian ad litem, objected to the guardianship award and subsequently appealed, arguing that the circuit court’s award of guardianship to the grandmother was not in the child’s best interests and failed to include an appropriate evaluation of the Guardianship Screening Factors enumerated in Rule 10 of the West Virginia Rules of Practice and Procedure for Minor Guardianship Proceedings. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that the Guardianship Screening Factors, when applied to the facts of this case, indicated that the grandmother was not a viable candidate to serve as guardian to A.C. The court remanded the matter for entry of an order awarding guardianship to E.B., the godmother of A.C. View "In re Guardianship of A.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order invaliding the arbitration provision at issue in this case involving an oil and gas lease and remanded with directions that the case be dismissed and referred to arbitration.Petitioner and Respondents were parties to an oil and gas lease that included an arbitration provision. Respondents sued Petitioner, seeking to recover payments to which they claimed to be entitled under the lease and various other damages. Petitioner filed a motion to compel arbitration, relying on the arbitration provision in the lease. The circuit court denied Petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration, finding ambiguity in the lease’s arbitration provision. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in going outside of the provisions in the arbitration clause to find language to create an ambiguity; and (2) the arbitration provision was not ambiguous and therefore should be enforced. View "SWN Production Co. v. Long" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether double jeopardy principles were violated by Petitioners’ respective convictions for three counts of robbery in the first degree. Petitioners, three defendants, were tried together before a jury. Each was convicted on charges of one count of burglary, three counts of robbery in the first degree, three counts of assault during the commission of a felony, and one count of conspiracy. The Supreme Court reversed Petitioners’ respective sentencing orders and remanded the cases to the circuit court for entry of new sentencing orders, holding that, under the facts of this case, Petitioners should have been indicted, tried and convicted on only a single count of robbery in the first degree. View "State v. Henson" on Justia Law