Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, Appalachian Leasing, Inc., purchased four coal trucks from Defendants, Mack Trucks, Inc. and Worldwide Equipment, Inc.. Claiming that each of the trucks were defective, Plaintiff filed a complaint grounded on Article 2 of the West Virginia Uniform Commercial Code, alleging that Defendants breached both express and implied warranties relating to the four trucks. For relief, Plaintiff sought revocation of acceptance of the vehicles, a refund of the purchase price, and incidental and consequential damages. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that Defendants had satisfied their obligations under the trucks’ express warranty and that the implied warranties had been disclaimed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that although the implied warranties were validly disclaimed, genuine issues of material fact existed concerning whether Defendants satisfied their obligations under the trucks’ express warranty. Remanded. View "Appalachian Leasing, Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, the Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles, revoked Respondent’s drivers license for driving under the influence of alcohol. Following an administrative hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), the chief hearing examiner affirmed the Commissioner’s order of revocation. The circuit court reversed the revocation ordered by the OAH, finding as fact that Respondent requested a blood test and was not provided one in violation of her constitutional and statutory rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Respondent did not satisfy her burden of showing that she properly asserted her statutory right to a blood test, and the circuit court’s order, to the extent that it made findings of fact and conclusions to the contrary, was in error. View "Dale v. Painter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the former employee of Defendant, filed this action brought pursuant to the Wage Payment and Collection Act (WPCA), alleging that Defendant violated the WPCA by failing to pay him the commissions which he was due and owing by the next regular payday upon his resignation. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Defendant, finding that Defendant did not violate the WPCA because Defendant’s employment agreement with Plaintiff contemplated that Plaintiff was paid commissions upon shipment of products. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that where the parties disagreed as to how commissions were calculated, the circuit court improperly focused on when the commissions were paid and therefore incorrectly determined that there were no genuine issues of fact. View "Adkins v. Am. Mine Research, Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder. Petitioner was sentenced to a determinate term of forty years in prison. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in the manner in which it conducted a suppression hearing concerning his videotaped statement and erred in finding that a statement he made was voluntarily given to the police. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner’s challenges to the suppression hearing failed; and (2) under the circumstances, the circuit court correctly determined that Petitioner’s statement was voluntary and in admitting the statement into evidence. View "State v. Marcum" on Justia Law

Employee was discharged from employment with Employer for picket line violence. Thereafter, Employee filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits. A Workforce West Virginia administrative law judge (ALJ) denied unemployment benefits, finding that Employee had been discharged for gross misconduct. The Workforce West Virginia’s Board of Review affirmed. The circuit court reversed and ruled that Employee was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits, concluding that the findings of fact of the ALJ, as adopted by the Board, were clearly wrong. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s final order and remanded to the circuit court with directions to reinstate the Workforce West Virginia decision denying unemployment compensation benefits, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that Employee’s acts did not constitute gross misconduct. Remanded. View "Alcan Rolled Prods. Ravenswood v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

Father filed a motion to modify and amend a parenting plan, after which Mother filed her own motion for modification and amendment. The family court entered an order making changes to the parenting plan. The circuit court made additional changes to the parenting plan. Thereafter, on reconsideration, the circuit court overturned the final decision of the family court as it pertained to the time allotted Mother and Father for the parenting of the couple’s child. Mother appealed and Father cross-appealed. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the circuit court’s order disturbing the family court’s allocation of parenting time; and (2) affirmed the circuit court’s order insofar as it left undisturbed the family court’s determination that changed circumstances justified modification of the child’s parenting plan and insofar as it ratified the family court’s decision to permit Mother to continue as the sole decisionmaker pertaining to the child’s extracurricular activities. View "In re Child of Stephen H. & Tamara P." on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to nighttime burglary by way of entering without breaking and grand larceny. As part of his sentence, Petitioner was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $50,013 to the victim of his crimes. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsideration of sentence requesting a reduction in the amount of restitution he was ordered to pay, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion in determining the amount of restitution without the presentation of evidence of the victim’s loss at the sentencing hearing and without determining Petitioner’s ability to pay restitution. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a hearing on the issue of restitution, holding that the circuit court did not consider all of the pertinent circumstances in determining the practicality of an award of full restitution. View "State v. Atwell" on Justia Law

After eighty-six-year-old Helen Graham died, Graham’s estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit against a hospital. One of Graham’s adult children, Betty Asbury, died before a settlement agreement was reached with the hospital. The circuit court approved the settlement agreement and awarded equal shares of the settlement proceeds to Graham’s six surviving children. Asbury’s estate subsequently argued that because Asbury was alive at the time of her mother’s death, Asbury’s estate was entitled to share in the proceeds of her mother’s wrongful death settlement. The circuit court ruled in favor of Asbury’s estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the West Virginia wrongful death act, Asbury’s estate was entitled to a share of the wrongful death settlement proceeds because Asbury’s right of action vested upon Graham’s death, rather than at the time the wrongful death settlement proceeds were distributed. View "Graham v. Asbury" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, individuals who had next-of-kin decedents buried in an old, rural cemetery, sued Defendants, claiming that Defendants desecrated their decedents’ graves during a gas pipeline relocation project. The jury returned a verdict finding Defendant liable to Plaintiffs for desecration of their decedents’ graves and awarded both compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, Defendants argued that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could find Defendants negligent and award Plaintiffs damages under W. Va. Code 29-1-8a, which protects ancient, unmarked gravesites of historic significance. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in instructing the jury about section 29-1-8a, and the error was not harmless. View "Gen. Pipeline Constr., Inc. v. Hairston" on Justia Law

Mother and Father, who were not married, had a child. The child was given Father’s surname at birth. After the parents ended their relationship, the circuit court granted Mother’s request to change the child’s surname to a hyphenated name using both parents’ last names. The Supreme Court reversed but did not remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. Nevertheless, the circuit court sua sponte noticed the case for a hearing, after which the circuit court purported to grant Mother’s petition and again changed the child’s surname to the hyphenated name. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court had no authority to hold the evidentiary hearing or to enter the order changing the child’s name for a second time. View "In re Name Change of Jenna A.J." on Justia Law