Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Nineteen unrelated mothers brought in the Circuit Court of Wayne County claims against Pfizer, Inc. and related entities (collectively, Respondents) on behalf of their respective minor children, alleging that their ingestion of Zoloft during their pregnancies caused their children to suffer birth defects. Petitioners hailed from fifteen different states. Respondents moved to refer the litigation to the Mass Litigation Panel. After the motion was denied, a virtually identical complaint was filed in the Wayne County Circuit Court by six unrelated plaintiff families against Respondents. The circuit court consolidated the two civil actions. The twenty-five plaintiff families then moved to refer the litigation to the Panel. The chief justice transferred the two civil actions to the Panel. Respondents filed a motion seeking to dismiss twenty-two non-resident plaintiff families on the basis of forum non conveniens. The Panel granted, in part, the motion to dismiss and dismissed twenty of the twenty-two plaintiff families. Petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the Panel’s dismissal order. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that there was no basis to prevent the Panel from enforcing its dismissal order. View "State ex rel. J.C. v. Hon. James P. Mazzone" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an attorney, and Respondent, a non-lawyer, entered into a fee-sharing agreement in connection with certain lawsuits. Petitioner later filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment on the issue of whether Respondent was entitled to compensation for services he performed in relation to the litigation, seeking a ruling as to whether a sharing of legal fees with Respondent would violate Rule 5.4 of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. The federal district court certified the following question to the Supreme Court: “Are the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct statements of public policy with the force of law equal to that given to statutes enacted by the West Virginia State Legislature?” The Supreme Court affirmed the question, as modified, in the affirmative, holding (1) Rule 5.4, which proscribes the sharing of fees between lawyers or law firms and non-lawyers, is an explicit judicial declaration of West Virginia public policy with the force and effect of law; and (2) accordingly, a fee-sharing agreement between a lawyer or law firm and the non-lawyer that violates the provisions of Rule 5.4 is void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable. View "Rich v. Simoni" on Justia Law

Prior to his termination, Petitioner was employed by Respondent, a tin plate manufacturer, as a technician operator. After his termination, Petitioner and his wife (Petitioners) filed this action seeking damages for retaliatory discharge and loss of consortium, alleging that Petitioner was discharged for reporting violations of a permit issued under the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA) and making complaints to Respondent about those permit violations. Respondents removed the case to federal court on grounds of diversity. The federal district court then certified a question to the West Virginia supreme Court, which answered the question as follows: An employee who alleges that he was discharged for reporting violations of a permit issued under authority of the WPCA and making complaints to his employer about those permit violations has established the predicate substantial public policy required to prima facie prove that the employer’s motivation for the discharge was the contravention of public policy. View "Frohnapfel v. Arcelormittal USA LLC" on Justia Law

Husband, who was fifty-one years old, filed a petition for divorce after twenty-eight years of marriage to Wife, who was sixty-two years old. The family court entered an order awarding spousal support to Wife in the amount of $350 per month until Wife reached the age of sixty-five, at which time the spousal support should increase to $650 per month until Husband reached the age of sixty-seven. The circuit court reversed, concluding that the future increase in Wife’s spousal support award was impermissible and that the award should terminate in three years. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred by setting aside and vacating the spousal support award effective when Wife reached the age of sixty-five, as there was no basis for the circuit court to conclude that the family court’s decision with respect to the amount and duration of the spousal support award was arbitrary and capricious. Remanded. View "Warren v. Garland" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Petitioner was found guilty of battery. The court found that the battery was sexually motivated and ordered Petitioner to register as a sex offender. The Supreme Court affirmed the battery conviction but reversed the finding that the offense was sexually motivated, holding (1) Petitioner’s due process rights were violated by the State’s failure to provide pretrial notice of its intent to seek a finding of sexual motivation, and the trial court’s finding of sexual motivation and concomitant registration requirements constituted plain error requiring reversal; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that Petitioner committed battery. View "State v. Seen" on Justia Law

Russell H., a twenty-four-year-old coal miner, died in his sleep from a seizure, leaving behind his mother (Petitioner) and his six-year-old daughter, L.H. Petitioner, on L.H.’s behalf, applied for dependent’s death benefits exactly six months after she received an autopsy report indicating that Russell’s cause of death stemmed from a work-related injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board of Review denied death benefits on the basis that Petitioner failed to file her application within six months after Russell’s death. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Board erred in finding that Petitioner’s application was time-barred because the first known medical evidence that Russell’s cause of death was work-related was not made available to the family until eight months after the death; and (2) Petitioner was a proper party to file for defendant’s death benefits on L.H.’s behalf. Remanded. View "Sheena H. v. W. Va. Office of Ins. Comm’r" on Justia Law

After K.H.’s mother died, the family court appointed the material grandmother (Grandmother) as guardian of the child. Father did not object to Grandmother’s appointment. The court subsequently granted primary custody to Grandmother with parenting time to Father. Father later field a petition to terminate Grandmother’s guardianship of the child. Grandmother responded by filing a motion seeking to be designated as K.H.’s “psychological parent.” After a series of hearings, the family court terminated Grandmother’s guardianship and denied her motion to be considered a psychological parent. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) the family court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Grandmother’s guardianship of K.H.; but (2) Grandmother was the psychological parent to K.H., and as such, Grandmother and K.H. were entitled to continued association with one another. View "In re K.H." on Justia Law

Petitioner, the prosecuting attorney of Ohio County, West Virginia, filed a juvenile petition against J.Y., a twelve-year-old boy charged with possession of a deadly weapon on the premises of an educational facility. Specifically, J.Y. possessed the deadly weapon with the express intent to intimidate another student. The circuit court dismissed the petition, finding that J.Y. was not competent to stand trial and that the charged offense did not involve “an act of violence against a person.” Petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court judge from dismissing the juvenile petition, asserting that J.Y. was charged with an offense that involved “an act of violence against a person” within the meaning of W. Va. Code 27-6A-3 given the potential for harm to other students that existed as a result of J.Y.’s actions. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ, holding that J.Y.’s actions indicated that he posed a risk of physical harm and severe emotional and psychological harm to children, and therefore, J.Y. committed an offense involving an act of violence against a person within the meaning of section 27-6A-3. View "State ex rel. Smith v. Hon. David J. Sims" on Justia Law

Jack Garrett Ford, Inc. sold a Ford Expedition to an unidentified individual from a dealership located in West Virginia. The vehicle was manufactured and designed in Michigan by Ford Motor Company, which had its principal place of business in Michigan. The Expedition was later sold to a Michigan resident, who in turn sold it to Plaintiffs, also Michigan residents. After the Expedition rolled over multiple times, resulting in two children being killed, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in a West Virginia state court, asserting claims against Jack Garrett Ford and Ford. Defendants moved to dismiss the civil action based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing that Michigan was the correct forum for the litigation. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss. Defendants then filed this petition for writ of prohibition asserting that the circuit court erred in its decision. The Supreme Court granted the writ as moulded, holding that the circuit court failed properly to evaluate Petitioners’ motion to dismiss in a manner that comported with W. Va. Code 56-1-1a. Remanded. View "State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Hon. David W. Nibert" on Justia Law

Mark and Tammy Davis owned property that secured a credit line deed of trust held by Huntington National Bank. The Davises failed to pay their 2005 and 2006 real property taxes, resulting in a notice of delinquency being published. The Davises subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. A second notice of delinquency was then published announcing that the tax lien would be sold. A notice of the tax lien sale was mailed to the Davises but was returned undeliverable. The Davises received a discharge in bankruptcy, after which the tax lien was sold. No party redeemed the property, and the tax deed was issued to Rebuild America, Inc. The Davises then filed this action seeking to set aside the tax sale. The circuit court granted relief, finding that the issuance of the two statutory notices of delinquency while the Davises were under the protection of a bankruptcy stay voided the tax deed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy stay rendered the statutory notices void ab initio, and therefore, the tax lien sale did not comply with the required statutory procedure. Accordingly, the tax deed issued in this matter must be set aside. View "Rebuild America v. Davis" on Justia Law