Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of murder in the first degree. The jury did not recommend mercy. The circuit court sentenced Petitioner to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not commit reversible error by (1) denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress his confession; (2) denying Petitioner’s motions in limine concerning forensic samples collected by the medical examiner; (3) admitting evidence that Petitioner contended should have been excluded by W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b); and (4) denying Petitioner’s motion to bifurcate the trial into separate guilt and mercy phases. View "State v. Farley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder and conspiracy to commit robbery. Defendant appealed, arguing that she was entitled to a new trial because the circuit court erred in allowing a police officer to improperly testify as a lay witness regarding historical cell site data and because the prosecutor made improper remarks during closing arguments. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court erred in permitting the officer to testify about historical cell site data as a lay witness, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) any objections Defendant had to the statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument were waived by her failure to object at trial. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Domestic Violence Survivors’ Support Group, Inc. (DVCC), a non-profit corporation that provides counseling services to victims of domestic violence, applied for a behavioral health center license. The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR), Office of Health Facility Licensure and Certification (OHFLAC) denied the application for licensure on the ground that DVCC does not employ a licensed counselor. The circuit court affirmed the administrative decision. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that OHFLAC’s interpretation of its administrative rule as requiring all professional counselors to be professionally licensed was contrary to the statutory and regulatory schemes. Remanded. View "Domestic Violence Survivors' Support Group, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources" on Justia Law

Beecher Osborne filed a lawsuit against Allegheny Wood Products, Inc. and Heartwood Forestland Fund, IV, Limited Partnership. The parties entered into a pre-trial settlement agreement containing (1) a consent judgment in which the defendants agreed to a $1 million judgment against them, (2) a covenant not to execute in which Osborne promised not to collect the judgment from the defendants, and (3) an assignment from the defendants to Osborne of all claims they may have had against Penn-America Insurance Company for failing to provide them a defense in the lawsuit. Osborne subsequently dismissed his lawsuit against Allegheny and Heartwood and filed a new lawsuit against Penn-America on his assigned claims to collect the consent judgment. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Osborne and ordered Penn-America to pay Osborne the consent judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the consent judgment was not binding on Penn-America because it was not a party to the underlying lawsuit; and (2) under the facts of this case, the assignment by Allegheny and Heartwood to Osborne of any claims they may have had against Penn-America was void. Remanded with direction to enter summary judgment for Penn-America and to dismiss Penn-America from Osborne’s lawsuit with prejudice. View "Penn-America Insurance Co. v. Osborne" on Justia Law

Edward Harris, a former employee of the County Commission of Calhoun County, filed an action in the circuit court alleging that the Commission committed errors in deducting and contributing amounts for his coverage under the West Virginia Employees Insurance Agency and the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System, thereby adversely affecting his retirement pay and his retirement health insurance benefits. The Commission argued that Harris’s action was barred by the statute of limitations. The circuit court ruled in favor of Harris, concluding that the statute of limitations begins to run when the employee is subsequently damaged at retirement through the receipt of less advantageous retirement benefits than they would have received, had they been timely enrolled. The Supreme Court accepted a question certified to it by the circuit court and answered (1) Harris’s cause of action against the Commission accrued when the errors took place, rather than at the time of Harris’s subsequent retirement; and (2) the statute of limitations set forth in W. Va. Code 55-2-6 for such a cause of action began to run either when the errors took place or when the errors were first known or should have been known by Harris, whichever occurred last. View "Harris v. County Commission of Calhoun County" on Justia Law

The two petitioners in this case were juveniles who were adjudicated juvenile delinquents for sexual assault. At issue before the circuit court was whether the juveniles should be required to register as lifetime sexual offenders upon reaching the age twenty-one. The circuit court certified two questions to the Supreme Court regarding the sex offender statutes in relation to juvenile offenders. The Supreme Court answered (1) a juvenile adjudicated of certain acts of delinquency is not required to register under the sex offender registration statute; and (2) the nature of the crimes underlying the two juvenile delinquency petitions - first and second degree sexual assault - allows for the public disclosure of the names of the juveniles. View "State v. J.E." on Justia Law

This disciplinary proceeding stemmed from allegedly false statements contained in a campaign-issued flyer disseminated while Stephen O. Callaghan, Judge-Elect of the 28th Judicial Circuit was a candidate for Judge of the 28th Judicial Circuit. The West Virginia Judicial Hearing Board recommended that Judge-Elect Callaghan be disciplined for three violations of the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct and one violation of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. The Supreme Court adopted the Board’s recommended discipline, with modification, and found that it was appropriate to suspend Judge-Elect Callaghan from the judicial bench for a total of two years without pay, along with the recommended fine of $15,000, and reprimand as an attorney, holding (1) there was clear and convincing evidence of improper conduct presented in support of each of the violations found by the Board; and (2) Judge-Elect Callaghan’s constitutional arguments were unavailing. View "In re Hon. Stephen O. Judge-Elect Callaghan" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a dispute between a pharmacy network administrator and various West Virginia pharmacies that were network members. Petitioners here were Caremark, LLC, companies affiliated with Caremark, LLC and individuals who were pharmacists-in-charge at certain CVS pharmacies (collectively, CVS/Caremark). Plaintiffs were six West Virginia retail pharmacies and six licensed pharmacists affiliated with those pharmacies (collectively, Pharmacies). Each of the six pharmacies had an agreement with Caremark. The agreements at issue contained an arbitration clause electing the American Arbitration Association (AAA) to govern arbitration. The Pharmacies filed a complaint against CVS/Caremark seeking injunctive relief for violations of W. Va. Code 30-5-7, 33-16-3q and 33-11-4 and also alleged tortious interference and fraud. CVS/Caremark filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the entry of an order dismissing this case and compelling arbitration, holding that the incorporation of the AAA rules into the arbitration agreements constituted clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. View "West Virginia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. McDowell Pharmacy, Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the proposed expansion of municipal geographic boundaries by minor boundary adjustment by the City of Summersville, West Virginia, as approved by the Nicholas County Commission. Petitioners brought this action against the County Nicholas Commission and its members (collectively, Respondents), alleging that certain statutory requirements governing annexation were not met during the approval process, the annexation was not in the best interests of Nicholas County, the annexation amounted to a public nuisance, and that the annexation resulted in an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation. The circuit court granted the County Commission’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied Petitioners’ motion for summary judgment in part, concluding that the County Commission complied with the statutory requirements in entering the order on boundary adjustment, which authorized the City’s annexation of the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in affirming the County Commission’s determination to approve the City’s petition for an annexation by minor boundary adjustment. View "Coffman v. Nicholas County Commission" on Justia Law

Andrew Minnich visited the South Charleston MedExpress to seek medical care. During his attempt to access an examination table, Andrew, who had recently undergone hip surgery, fell and sustained injuries. Andrew died ninety days later. Thereafter, Joyce Minnich filed a complaint against Medexpress Urgent Care, Inc. (MedExpress), alleging, inter alia, negligence based on premises liability. The circuit court granted summary judgment for MedExpress as to the premises liability claim and directed Petitioner to amend her complaint to plead a medical malpractice claim compliant with the filing requirements of the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA). Petitioner appealed, arguing that the MPLA did not apply because Andrew was not treated by a “health care provider” prior to his fall within the MedExpress within the facility. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a “health care provider,” as defined by the MPLA, did provide health care related services to Andrew prior to his fall, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in deciding that the MPLA applied to this case. View "Minnich v. MedExpress Urgent Care, Inc." on Justia Law