Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

After a hearing, the mental hygiene commissioner found probable cause to believe that Petitioner was mentally ill and a danger to self or to others due to mental illness. The commissioner directed Petitioner’s commitment for examination at a local mental health facility. Petitioner was subsequently involuntarily committed to Highland Hospital for evaluation. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that her mental health commitment was unlawful. The circuit court denied Petitioner a writ of habeas corpus on the basis that her cause was mooted by her release from her involuntary hospitalization. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that this habeas matter is moot. View "In re Involuntary Hospitalization of T.O." on Justia Law

All of the parties to this case were co-owners of several tracts of land. Deborah Wyckoff filed this lawsuit against David Bowyer seeking to partition the surface in kind or by sale. Bowyer filed a counterclaim and third-party complaint seeking to partition the surface and/or oil, coal and gas below the surface through partition by allotment or partition by sale. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Wyckoff, finding that Bowyer had not established the statutory elements for a partition by allotment or by sale. The court also denied Bowyer’s request to further amend his third-party complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court properly found that Bowyer failed to establish his entitlement to partition by allotment or by sale; and (2) the circuit court did not err by denying Bowyer’s request to amend his complaint. View "Bowyer v. Wyckoff" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the daughters and wife of the decedent, filed an action against the State Police, alleging that State Police employees were liable for the wrongful death of the decedent and that they negligently or recklessly mishandled the decedent’s remains. The State police filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the actions of the State Police employees were discretionary acts protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. The circuit court denied the motion, determining (1) the duties of the State Police employees were not discretionary but, rather, were ministerial; and (2) the employees had taken on a special duty toward Plaintiffs and, therefore, could be liable for negligently breaching that duty. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State Police was entitled to qualified immunity to protect the discretionary acts of its employees. Remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of the State Police and its employees. View "W. Va. State Police v. Hughes" on Justia Law

Petitioner Rashaun Boyd and Petitioner Christopher Wyche were prosecuted in a joint trial. Boyd was convicted of attempted murder, wanton endangerment, and possession of a firearm. Wyche was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, wanton endangerment, and possession of a firearm. This appeal followed the denial of post-trial motions. The Supreme Court affirmed the final judgments in these consolidated appeals, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to sustain Petitioners’ convictions; (2) contrary to Boyd’s argument, the Court’s standard of review set out in Syllabus point three of State v. Guthrie need not be overruled; (3) the trial court did not commit reversible error in refusing to sever the cases for trial; (4) the trial court’s evidentiary rulings challenged on appeal did not warrant reversal of Wyche’s convictions; (5) the prosecutor did not engage in impermissible misconduct; and (6) the trial court did not err in allowing the State to use a peremptory strike to remove the only juror of “color.” View "State v. Boyd" on Justia Law

DWG Oil & Gas Acquisitions, LLC (DWG) contended that it was the current owner of the oil and gas underlying a parcel of land in Marshall County. The circuit court determined that the oil and gas underlying the parcel was conveyed by a 1913 deed to A.B. Campbell, a predecessor in title of Southern County Farms, Inc., Harlan and Barbara Kittle, and Lori Carpenter (collectively, Defendants). Consequently, title to the oil and gas was vested in Defendants rather than DWG. DWG appealed, arguing that it was the current owner of the oil and gas at issue by virtue of a competing chain of title arising from a 1908 deed executed by P. P. Campbell, Sr. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly applied the law and properly found that title to the oil and gas underlying the parcel of land is currently vested in Defendants. View "DWG Oil & Gas Acquistions, LLC v. Southern Country Farms" on Justia Law

Joshua Butcher defeated incumbent Judge William Douglas Witten for the open judicial seat in Division 1 of the Circuit Court of Logan County in the May 2016 nonpartisan election. Butcher was declared the winner after a recount. Judge Witten filed a notice of election contest requesting that a special court be convened to determine matters he challenged in the election and that he be declared the winner. After a hearing, a majority of the special court members found that there was no misconduct affecting the election results or rendering the election unfair. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Judge Witten’s allegations of voting irregularities in three Logan County precincts were unavailing. View "Witten v. Butcher" on Justia Law

This action arose from the murder of a teenager by her two friends. The victim’s parents filed a wrongful death action against the killers and the two women they lived with, Tara Clendenen and Rachel Shoaf. Clendenen and Shoaf were insured under homeowner’s insurance policies issued by American National Property and Casualty Company (ANPAC) and Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company (Erie). Although not parties to the state court action, ANPAC and Erie filed declaratory judgment actions in the federal district court seeking a determination that the homeowner’s insurance policies did not provide coverage for the claims being asserted in the complaint and that the insurers had no duty to defend or indemnify the defendants. The federal court found that it was unclear whether coverage was available to Sheaf and Clendenen in the state court action and certified questions to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held (1) the unambiguous intentional/criminal acts exclusions in the insurers’ policies precluded liability coverage to Clendenen and Shoaf for the claims in the underlying case because the murder was expected or intended by the killers, co-insureds under their respective policies; and (2) the unambiguous severability clauses in the insurers’ policies did not prevail over the unambiguous intentional/criminal acts exclusions. View "American National Property & Casualty Co. v. Clendenen" on Justia Law

Seven entities under contract to provide residential services to youth in the state (collectively, Petitioners) filed a petition for writ of mandamus requiring the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services (DHHR), its Cabinet Secretary, the West Virginia Bureau for Medical Services (BMS), its Acting Commissioner, the Bureau for Children and Families (BCF), and its Commissioner (collectively, Respondents) to promulgate new or amended legislative rules prior to implementing changes to existing residential child care services policies. The Supreme Court granted a writ as moulded, finding it most appropriate to order this matter to be docketed in this circuit court as if it were an original proceeding in mandamus in that court. Remanded for further proceedings. View "State ex rel. Pressley Ridge v. W. Va. Department of Health & Human Resources" on Justia Law