Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff brought an action for unlawful detainer against Defendant. The circuit court granted relief and ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant $50,000 for the cost of a log cabin that Defendant was required to vacate. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by determining that she would be unjustly enriched if she did not reimburse Defendant for the cost of the log cabin. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in granting relief for unlawful detainer; but (2) because the pleadings suggested that Defendant incurred costs greater than $50,000 in the erection and maintenance of the log cabin, the circuit court’s order valuing the log cabin home at $50,000 must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings to determine the correct amount Defendant is entitled to recover from Plaintiff. View "Ward v. Ward" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the return of items seized by a state police trooper (Trooper) in his execution of a search warrant at Petitioner’s business premises. In his complaint, Petitioner alleged that the search warrant was an improper general warrant. Also named as a defendant was the former prosecuting attorney for Mineral County (Prosecutor). The circuit court denied Petitioner’s complaint. Petitioner appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly denied Petitioner’s complaint seeking a writ of mandamus because mandamus was not a proper remedy in this case. View "Pristine Pre-Owned Auto, Inc. v. Courrier" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. The circuit court imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. After unsuccessfully seeking a new trial and review by the United States Supreme Court, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred by failing to refusing to dismiss a juror who overheard a threatening remark related to her role as a juror during the trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in (1) refusing to dismiss the juror after conducting a Remmer hearing; (2) permitting testimony from the victim’s family members during the mercy phase of trial; and (3) deciding not to give an instruction outlining factors for the jury to consider when determining whether to recommend mercy. View "Lister v. Ballard" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a commercial truck driver, alleged that Defendant carelessly engaged in an act of road rage that injured Plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict that Plaintiff had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant negligently caused the accident. The circuit court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict. Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict pursuant to W. Va. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), arguing that Defendant concealed prior traffic citations during discovery and misled the jury about prior citations in his testimony, and therefore, the verdict was unjust. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court’s judgment order, holding that Defendant’s misrepresentation and misconduct in discovery prevented Plaintiff from fully and fairly preparing for and rebutting Defendant’s claims at trial, and therefore, the judgment was unfairly obtained. Remanded. View "Phillips v. Stear" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Murl Tribble and Janet Sargent, and Defendant, Polly Pickens, were three adult sisters involved in a dispute over the Estate of their deceased mother. Plaintiffs alleged (1) beginning at the time of their father’s death, Defendant engaged in a scheme to convert their mother’s property to her own use, to the prejudice of the Estate and Plaintiffs as beneficiaries; and (2) Defendant attempted to deal her scheme by not disclosing non-probate assets while acting as executrix of their mother’s estate. The jury awarded Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $94,124, which the circuit court directed to be paid into the Estate. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial, holding (1) Defendant’s argument that the Supreme Court should dismiss this action as untimely was without merit; (2) the circuit court did not err in entering judgment as a matter of law to the effect that a fiduciary relationship existed between Defendant and her mother; and (3) Plaintiffs established a sufficient factual basis for their claims of breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with Plaintiffs’ expectancy, conversion, constructive fraud, and actual fraud to go to the jury. View "Pickens v. Tribble" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of robbery in the first degree, nighttime burglary, and conspiracy. At issue in this case were two plea deals offered by the State. The first was a pre-trial offer and the second was a post-conviction offer regarding a recidivist action. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective by giving erroneous advice before trial and by failing adequately to prepare him for his trial testimony. After an omnibus hearing, the circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly determined that Petitioner could not establish a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. View "Raines v. Ballard" on Justia Law

The State filed an information charging Caleb Toparis with the misdemeanor offenses of domestic assault and domestic battery. Toparis filed a motion to dismiss the information, asserting that his right to a speedy trial had been violated because he had not been tried on the charges within one year of the execution of the warrant. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss. The State sought a writ of prohibition to prohibit the circuit court from dismissing the two misdemeanor charges against Toparis, contending that the circuit court erred in finding that Toparis’s right to a speedy trial had been violated. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ, holding that Toparis’s right to a speedy trial was not violated in this case. View "State ex rel. Sorsaia v. Hon. Stowers" on Justia Law

The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect against Father. After an adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court dismissed the abuse and neglect petition, concluding that DHHR failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Father was abusive. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court’s dismissal of the abuse and neglect petition was clear error because the DHHR presented clear and convincing evidence that Father showed a sexually explicit video to two of his children and engaged in some sort of sexual conduct with one child. View "In re C.M." on Justia Law

Nicole Scarcelli filed the underlying medical malpractice action against Dr. Rajai Khoury and Khoury Surgical Group, Inc. (collectively, Dr. Khoury) in the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia. Dr. Khoury filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing that the parties would be better served if the action were filed in the State of Ohio, where the cause of action arose and where Scarcelli resides. Scarcelli responded that her choice of forum was entitled to great deference because Dr. Khoury resides in Ohio County and because Ohio County is the principal place of business of Khoury Surgical Group. The circuit court denied Dr. Khoury’s motion to dismiss after considering the factors enumerated in West Virginia’s forum non conveniens statute. Dr. Khoury subsequently filed this proceeding in prohibition challenging the circuit court’s order denying his motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that the circuit court did not exceed its authority in allowing Scarcelli’s action to go forward in Ohio County, West Virginia. View "State ex rel. Khoury v. Hon. Cuomo" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed the underlying action against American Electric Power Co., Inc., et al. (collectively, AEP) seeking damages for injuries that they incurred as a result of their exposure to coal combustion waste from the Gavin Landfill in Gallipolis, Ohio. AEP, which owns and/or operates the landfill, filed a motion to dismiss based upon forum non conveniens. The circuit court refused AEP’s motion to dismiss, concluding, inter alia, that West Virginia is not such an inconvenient forum so as to require trial of the case elsewhere. AEP requested the Supreme Court to issue a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the circuit court’s order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court adequately considered and applied the statutory forum non conveniens factors in refusing AEP’s motion to dismiss on such grounds. View "State ex rel. Am. Elec. Power v. Hon. Nibert" on Justia Law