Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Leslie Meadows filed a complaint against William Erps claiming that Erps owed he money from several real estate projects that she shared with him. For purposes of appeal, Meadows’s claims involved two of those transactions with Erps: (1) claims related to the purchase of, improvements to, and sale of the Sutphin property; and (2) claims related to the financing for the Twiford apartments. The circuit court awarded judgment to Meadows in the amount of $18,675 with respect to the Sutphin property and $67,000 for the Twiford apartments, for a total sum of $85,675. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court’s award of judgment of $18,675 to Meadows as an abuse of discretion; and (2) the circuit court’s award of $67,000 was an abuse of discretion, and the circuit court’s award of judgment on the Twiford apartments is hereby reduced to $30,000. Remanded with directions to vacate the judgment for Meadows on the Sutphin property and to enter judgment for Meadows on the Twiford apartments in the amount of $30,000. View "Erps v. Meadows" on Justia Law

Plaintiff owned a building insured by State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company that was rendered a total loss by fire. State Farm reduced the adjusted policy limit for the building by fifteen percent under the policy’s vacancy provision. State Farm sent Plaintiff a check for debris removal, but no coverage was extended for pollutant removal. Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action, alleging that the State Farm improperly reduced the full policy limit for building coverage by fifteen percent and that he was entitled to the costs he incurred for the removal and testing of asbestos under the policy’s pollutant cleanup and removal coverage. The circuit court entered an order certifying two questions to the Supreme Court. The Court answered (1) an insured may reduce a fire insurance policy’s limit of coverage for total loss by fire for the insured premises by fifteen percent pursuant to a vacancy provision in the policy; and (2) a fire insurance policy that includes a pollutant clean up and removal provision does provide provide coverage in excess of the debris removal coverage afforded by the policy for the removal of asbestos contained in a fire-damaged or destroyed structure. View "Ashraf v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Shane Marcum, who was being held on felony charges, allegedly sustained injuries during a cell extraction. Marcum filed a civil action against the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority (the Regional Jail). The proceeding was removed to federal court. During the federal court proceeding, Marcum requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of a videotape that recorded his cell extraction. The Regional Jail refused to turn over the videotape, arguing that it was exempt under W. Va. Code 29B-1-4(a)(2) and (19). Marcum then filed a complaint for preliminary injunction and declaratory relief against the Regional Jail seeking a court order requiring the regional Jail to produce the cell extraction videotape. The circuit court entered an order requiring the Regional Jail to turn over the videotape to Marcum. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) pursuant to section 29B-1-4(a)(19), disclosure of a videotape of the cell extraction of an inmate is prohibited; and (2) therefore, the circuit court committed clear error in ordering the disclosure of the cell extraction videotape. View "W. Va. Regional Jail & Correctional Facility v. Marcum" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. The jury refused to recommend murder, and the circuit court sentenced Petitioner to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion for a change of the trial venue; (2) the circuit court did not commit reversible error by denying Petitioner’s motion to present evidence of the victim’s prior bad acts pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b); and (3) there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to prove that the murder was premeditated. View "State v. Zuccaro" on Justia Law

A subsidiary company brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment against its parent companies, challenging three management agreements by which the parent companies controlled, managed, and participated in the affairs of the subsidiary. The subsidiary argued that two clauses in the agreements were unconscionable because one stated that the parent companies could never be liable to the subsidiary company and the other required the subsidiary to indemnify the parent companies for all legal and liability costs. The circuit court declared that the two clauses at issue were unconscionable and unenforceable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that the two challenged clauses were unconscionable because the clauses were oppressive and unfair. View "Blackrock Capital Investment Corp. v. Fish" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of receiving or transferring stolen property, daytime burglary, and conspiracy to transfer or receive stolen property. The circuit court entered an order indicating that Petitioner, along with two co-defendants, was jointly and severally liable for restitution in the amount of $46,592. Petitioner appealed, challenging the circuit court’s determination of restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the circuit court thoroughly evaluated Petitioner’s financial situation in ordering her restitution payment; but (2) because Petitioner’s co-defendants were never held jointly and severally liable with Petitioner, this matter must be remanded for evaluation of the issue of the monetary restitution to be paid by Petitioner. View "State v. Bagent" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of four counts of first degree sexual assault, five counts of first degree sexual abuse, and nine counts of sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust to a child. Petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate term of incarceration of 216 to 705 years and fifty years of supervised release. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner later filed a pro se motion for a writ of habeas corpus asserting twenty-three grounds for relief. the circuit court denied relief. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the circuit court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law justifying its denial of relief. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court did not comply with the statutory obligation to articulate its reasons for denying Petitioner relief on each of the grounds asserted in his habeas petition. Remanded. View "Watts v. Ballard" on Justia Law

Plaintiff bid on the position “mechanic trainee” at a mine owned by Eastern Associated Coal (Defendant). In July 2012, Plaintiff learned of Defendant’s decision not to hire him. He did not learn until January 2014, however, that the basis for the employment decision may have been his age. Plaintiff instituted a civil action in the circuit court, asserting that Defendant had committed age discrimination in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act (HRA). Defendant moved to dismiss the civil action for failure to institute the suit within two years of the alleged discriminatory act underlying Plaintiff’s complaint. The circuit court certified two questions to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered (1) for discriminatory hiring causes of action filed pursuant to the HRA, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date that the plaintiff learns of the adverse employment decision; and (2) for discriminatory hiring causes of action filed pursuant to the HRA, the discovery rule does not toll the statute of limitations until the plaintiff discovers the alleged discriminatory motive underlying the employment decision. View "Metz v. Eastern Associated Coal, LLC" on Justia Law

Respondent filed a putative class action alleging that Petitioner had failed to pay him and other similarly situated employees their final wages within the time period mandated by the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act. Respondent served requests upon Petitioners seeking class discovery. Petitioner filed a motion to stay class discovery, arguing that the class discovery was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and premature. The circuit court denied the request to stay class discovery, finding that Petitioner had waived its objections to class discovery, as they were untimely raised, and had further failed to meet its burden of demonstrating why such discovery should not proceed. Petitioner appealed the circuit court’s interlocutory order and invited the Supreme Court to extend the collateral order doctrine to interlocutory discovery orders that implicate case management. The Court, however, chose to consider this matter as a petition for a writ of prohibition, granted the writ, and vacated the order denying Petitioner’s motion to stay class discovery, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in refusing to stay class discovery pending a ruling on the threshold legal issue of statutory construction that bears on the viability of Respondent’s individual claim. Remanded. View "GMS Mine Repair & Maintenance, Inc. v. Milkos" on Justia Law

Petitioner was indicted on a felony charge of possession of child pornography. Petitioner was initially found not competent to stand trial. Later, the circuit court held a hearing regarding Petitioner’s competency. The court concluded that Petitioner’s alleged crime of attaining and viewing images of children engaged in sexual acts via his computer was a crime involving “an act of violence against a person” within the meaning of W. Va. Code 27-6A-3(h) and ordered that Petitioner remain under its jurisdiction until the expiration of his maximum sentence or until he attained competency and the charges were resolved. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) distributing and exhibiting material depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct is a crime that involves an act of violence against a person within the meaning of section 27-6A-3(h); and (2) therefore the circuit court is justified in maintaining jurisdiction over him pursuant to the statute. View "State v. Riggleman" on Justia Law