Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Respondent was the low bidder on a government construction contract. The Purchasing Division of the Department of Administration and the Lottery Commission (collectively, the Agency), however, awarded the contract to Petitioner, the next low bidder, determining that Petitioner was the lowest qualified responsible bidder on the project. Petitioner filed suit to rescind the contract. The circuit court ordered the Agency to award the contract to Respondent, concluding that the determination to disqualify Respondent was not rational. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Agency abused its discretion when it awarded the construction contract to Petitioner. View "Wiseman Constr. Co. v. Maynard C. Smith Constr. Co." on Justia Law

After Respondent was terminated as Superintendent of Schools she challenged her termination from employment by filing suit in the circuit court, naming as Defendants the West Virginia Board of Education and its former president (collectively, Petitioners). Respondent alleged in her complaint that her due process rights under the state Constitution were violated and asserted claims for breach of contract, defamation, and false light. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that qualified immunity barred each of Respondent’s claims. The circuit court denied Petitioners’ motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed Respondent’s complaint, holding that Respondent’s complaint failed to allege a cause of action sufficient to overcome Petitioners’ discretion to terminate her, and therefore, qualified immunity barred each of Respondent’s claims. View "W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Marple" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against two law enforcement officers, as well as their respective employers, alleging (1) the officers attacked, assaulted and battered Plaintiff and intentionally inflicted emotional distress; (2) the employers had failed to properly hire and discipline the officers and had failed to adopt policies to prevent similar conduct; and (3) Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly denied summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity because there were numerous disputes about the material facts supporting the immunity determination, which disputes should be resolved by a jury. View "Maston v. Wagner" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of robbery and two counts of sexual assault. Petitioner’s first petition for writ of habeas corpus was unsuccessful. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on the results of new DNA testing that excluded Petitioner as either a primary or secondary sperm contributor. The circuit court denied relief. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the State violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose an exculpatory DNA report it possessed more than six weeks prior to the final plea hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State’s failure to disclose favorable DNA test results obtained six weeks prior to Petitioner’s plea hearing violated Petitioner’s due process rights, and the error was prejudicial. View "Buffey v. Ballard" on Justia Law

U.S. Silica Company has been named as a defendant in numerous silica claims seeking damages for injuries allegedly caused by exposure to silica sand. When three policies of comprehensive general liability insurance purchased by U.S. Silica’s predecessor from the Travelers Indemnity Company were discovered, U.S. Silica informed Travelers of the silica claims and requested coverage and reimbursement under these Travelers policies. When it failed to receive a response, U.S. Silica filed a declaratory judgment against Travelers. The jury found that Travelers breached its insurance policies when it refused to pay U.S. Silica’s claims for insurance coverage for the silica lawsuits and that Travelers owed U.S. Silica $8 million as a result. The circuit court denied Travelers’ post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial and awarded U.S. Silica attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that U.S. Silica failed to demonstrate that its explanation for its significant delay in notifying Travelers of the silica claims was reasonable, and therefore, U.S. Silica was not entitled to coverage under the subject Travelers policies. Remanded with directions to enter an order granting Travelers’ post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law. View "Travelers Indem. Co. v. U.S. Silica Co." on Justia Law

Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company submitted to the Virginia Insurance Commissioner a rate, form, and product filing seeking approval for a new product endorsement entitled Rate Protection Endorsement (RPE). The Commissioner approved the Erie filing, as amended. Respondent, an Erie insured, filed an administrative complaint against Erie seeking a determination as to whether the Commissioner’s approval of Erie’s RPE should be withdrawn. The Commissioner denied Respondent relief. The circuit court reversed, concluding that the Commissioner was statutorily required to withdraw approval of Erie’s RPE. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court engaged in an improper re-examination of Erie’s rate and form policy filing for its RPE that was approved by the Commissioner, and therefore, the circuit court erred in reversing the decision of the Commissioner. View "Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. King" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder without a recommendation of mercy, attempted murder, and malicious wounding. The Supreme Court affirmed with one exception, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support Petitioner’s convictions; (2) the circuit court did not admit unfairly prejudicial evidence during the mercy phase of Defendant’s bifurcated trial; (3) Petitioner failed to prove misconduct with regard to an alleged pre-deliberation conversation among jurors during trial; but (4) the circuit court abused its discretion by unduly restricting Petitioner’s opportunity to attempt to prove his claim that a juror communicated with the surviving victim during trial recesses. Remanded for an additional post-trial hearing on the single issue of juror misconduct. View "State v. Jenner" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of fleeing in a vehicle, possession with intent to deliver a schedule II controlled substance (cocaine), and possession with intent to deliver a schedule II controlled substance (methamphetamine). Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence a police officer discovered upon searching Defendant’s vehicle, arguing that no probable cause existed for either the traffic stop or the subsequent search. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions and resultant sentences and remanded, holding that the warrantless search of Defendant’s vehicle was unlawful, and therefore, the circuit court erred by not suppressing the evidence found during that search. View "State v. Noel" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an attorney practicing primarily in the Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit (judicial circuit), sought a writ of prohibition to prevent Respondents, the mental hygiene commissioners of the judicial circuit, from appointing legal counsel for alleged protected persons in actions instituted under the West Virginia Guardianship and Conservatorship Act (Act). Specifically, Petitioner asserted that W. Va. Code 44A-2-7(a) mandates that circuit courts, rather than mental hygiene commissioners, make such appointments. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the provisions of section 44A-2-7(a) require the circuit court to appoint legal counsel for the alleged protected persons instituted under the Act, and therefore, Respondents exceeded their legitimate powers by appointing legal counsel for alleged protected persons under section 44A-2-7(a). View "State ex rel. Barrat v. Dalby" on Justia Law

In 2010, an abuse and neglect petition was filed alleging that Child’s mother (Mother) was under the influence of drugs while caring for Child. The Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) subsequently placed Child in the care of his paternal grandparents (Grandparents). In 2013, the circuit court held a permanency hearing and granted legal guardianship to Grandparents. Thereafter, Mother filed a petition to overturn legal guardianship, asserting that her recovery and continued sobriety constituted a material change in circumstances justifying a modification of the custody of Child. After a hearing held in 2015, the circuit court terminated Grandparents’ legal guardianship and ordered the transfer of Child to Mother. Grandparents appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was insufficient evidence in the record indicating that alteration of custody would serve Child’s best interests at this time. View "In re S.W." on Justia Law