Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Judicial Investigation Commission (JIC) requested the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus against the Putnam County Board of Ballot Commissioners (Board) to remove Troy Sexton from the May 2016 ballot as a candidate for the office of magistrate in Putnam County. The JIC based is request upon its determination that Sexton had been convicted of a "misdemeanor involving moral turpitude". The Supreme Court granted the requested writ of mandamus and directed the Board to remove Sexton as a magisterial candidate from the election ballot, holding that Sexton’s misdemeanor conviction of reporting a false emergency constituted a conviction of a “misdemeanor involving moral turpitude” such that he was not qualified to serve as a magistrate pursuant to the requirements for that office set forth in W. Va. Code 50-1-4. View "State ex rel. Judicial Investigation Comm’n v. Board of Ballot Comm’rs" on Justia Law

Respondents entered into a loan agreement with Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. As part of the mortgage loan transaction, Respondents signed an arbitration agreement. Respondents later filed a complaint alleging that Nationstar engaged in predatory lending practices and abusive and unlawful debt collection in connection with the mortgage loan. Nationstar filed a motion to compel arbitration. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Respondents did not demonstrate that the arbitration agreement was either procedurally or substantively unconscionable. Remanded. View "Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. West" on Justia Law

The City of Morgantown passed an ordinance seeking to regulate the weight and size of certain vehicles using a portion of West Virginia State Route 7 that passes through Morgantown. Plaintiffs filed a complaint arguing that the ordinance was preempted by state law. The circuit court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a municipality is not statutorily authorized to prohibit the operation of trucks or to impose limitations on the size or weight thereof on a connecting part of the state road system, and therefore, Morgantown was not authorized to regulate the size or weight of trucks traveling on the portion of W. Va. Route 7 that lies within the city. View "City of Morgantown v. Nuzum Trucking Co." on Justia Law

J.F. Allen Corporation (J.F. Allen), a utility contractor, and the Sanitary Board of the City of Charleston (CSB), a utility owner, entered into a written agreement for a construction project involving improvements to the City of Charleston’s municipal sewer system. Final completion was delayed under the contract, and adjustments were made that increased the contract price. After final payment was made under the contract, J.F. Allen sought additional compensation for extra, non-contractual work. After CSB refused the request J.F. Allen filed a complaint alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Upon CSB’s motion, the circuit court dismissed, with prejudice, the breach of contract claim pursuant to W. Va. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that J.F. Allen set forth a claim upon which relief could be granted. Remanded. View "J.F. Allen Corp. v. Sanitary Bd. of City of Charleston" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of twenty counts of possession of material visually portraying a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Petitioner also received a related recidivist conviction. Through a second amended sentencing order Petitioner was sentenced to a total period of incarceration of seventeen years. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) the trial court did not err when it allowed expert opinion testimony concerning the ages of the children depicted in the images; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (3) Petitioner was not denied his constitutional right to a fair trial when the trial court allowed the State to present hearsay testimony; and (4) Petitioner’s convictions did not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. View "State v. Shingleton" on Justia Law

In 2013, the Town of Granville adopted an ordinance limiting new mobile homes and house trailers to existing mobile home parks. Patrick Russell and Sylvia Smith (together, Mr. Russell) requested a variance to the ordinance. The Town declined to grant the variance. Mr. Russell sought relief in the circuit court, claiming that West Virginia law prohibited the Town from regulating the placement of mobile homes and house trailers. The circuit court denied relief, concluding that the ordinance was valid and enforceable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Town had authority under W. Va. Code 8-12-5(30) to adopt an ordinance restricting the placement of new mobile homes and house trailers to existing mobile home parks; and (2) therefore, the Town’s ordinance was valid and and enforceable. View "Russell v. Town of Granville" on Justia Law

Ryan Cunningham, Ronald LeGrand and four other individuals signed an operating agreement of Mountain Country Partners, LLC. Cunningham instituted a civil action seeking injunctive relief for the purpose of gaining operating control of the company. The case was stayed pending arbitration pursuant to the mandatory arbitration clause contained in the operating agreement. Legrand and Mountain Country filed five counterclaims against Cunningham. After a hearing, the arbitrator denied Cunningham’s claim and awarded relief against him based on Defendants’ counterclaims. The arbitrator ordered Cunningham to pay Mountain Country $113,717 in damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. Cunningham filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law of West Virginia, improperly considered hearsay evidence, and refused to reopen the proceedings for rebuttal evidence. The circuit court denied Cunningham’s motion and confirmed the arbitration award. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Cunningham failed to identify any valid basis for setting aside the arbitration award. View "Cunningham v. LeGrand" on Justia Law

William and Sarah Bassett, who were insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, alleged that State Farm engaged in unfair trade practices with regard to the Bassetts’ assertion of unfair trade practices. The Bassetts based their claim on the assertion that State Farm never properly offered additional uninsured coverage, as State Farm was statutorily required to do. The circuit court granted the Bassetts’ motion to compel answers to three interrogatories seeking the names, addresses and telephone numbers of State Farm insureds in West Virginia who may have experienced difficulties regarding their uninsured motorist coverage. State Farm filed this original proceeding in prohibition asking the Court to prohibit enforcement of its discovery order. The Supreme Court granted relief, as moulded, prohibiting enforcement of the order granting the Bassetts’ motion to compel, concluding that the circuit court erred by failing to bar the disclosure of the names, addresses and telephone numbers of State Farm’s other insureds. View "State ex rel. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hon. Jeffrey D. Cramer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of nine counts of rape, three counts of incest, and eight counts of sodomy for sexually abusing four girls. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) denying Defendant’s pre-trial motion to sever the charges against him, as multiple trials would have resulted in four nearly identical and needless trials; (2) allowing the State to amend the indictment as to the years in which Defendant’s alleged conduct occurred because the amendment was “of form” and not substantial; (3) sentencing Defendant on charges he believed could not have occurred in West Virginia where the jury found that Petitioner committed the criminal conduct in West Virginia; and (4) denying Defendant’s motion for acquittal based on insufficient evidence, as the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Frank S." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of twelve counts of wanton endangerment, one count of attempted murder, and one count of fleeing in reckless indifference to the safety of others. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not engage in impermissible participation in the plea bargaining process by, sua sponte, ordering Petitioner to undergo a second evaluation for competency and criminal responsibility prior to presentation of the proposed plea agreement; (2) the trial court did not err in permitting the guilty verdict to stand where there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict that Petitioner was sane at the time of criminal conduct; (3) there was no plain error in the trial court’s decision to uphold the guilty verdict on the attempted murder count; (4) Petitioner’s sentence was proportional; and (5) Petitioner’s remaining claims of error were unavailing. View "State v. Fleming" on Justia Law