This case concerned a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by Dr. Katherine Anne Hoover against a circuit judge's order enforcing a subpoena duces tecum issued by the West Virginia Board of Medicine. The subpoena sought a transcript of an April 1996 Complaint Committee meeting that the petitioner had recorded using a private court reporter, after a complaint alleged improper conduct during a patient visit. The circuit court, following an in camera review, found that the petitioner had requested the meeting be public and ordered compliance with the subpoena. The Supreme Court reviewed questions of law de novo and factual findings for clear error, noting that the Board of Medicine's authority derives from statute and that subpoenas may be quashed if unreasonable or oppressive.
This case concerned the School Building Authority of West Virginia's request for a writ of mandamus to confirm its power to issue refunding bonds for pre-1993 bonds issued under the School Building Authority Act, with the goal of generating cash savings for school construction while discharging existing obligations. The respondent Superintendent argued that the plan violated the state constitution's debt limitations under Article X, Section 4, and the Court's prior ruling in Winkler v. State School Building Authority. The Court granted the writ as moulded, holding that the Legislature's post-Winkler amendments expressly authorized such refunding without creating new indebtedness, that any aggregate savings must be retained solely for school construction and maintenance, and that the transactions complied with statutory requirements for bond issuance and investment of proceeds. The decision emphasized that refunding existing bonds at lower rates does not constitute new debt under the principles established in Winkler.
The case involves the Charleston Building Commission petitioning for a writ of mandamus to compel its chairman to execute a financial advisor agreement for acquiring and renovating a building, issuing bonds or certificates to finance the project, and leasing the property to the State of West Virginia under a lease-purchase arrangement for use by the Department of Health and Human Resources. The Commission argued these steps fell within its powers under W. Va. Code § 8-33-1 et seq. and did not violate Article X, Sections 4, 6, or 8 of the state constitution. The court granted the writ after reviewing the statutory grants of authority to municipal building commissions for such self-supporting projects and finding no constitutional prohibition on the proposed financing or lease structure.
Public Citizen sued First National Bank in Fairmont after an employee embezzled over $26,000 by depositing two checks made payable to Public Citizen into his personal account at the bank. The circuit court ruled for the bank, finding its actions commercially reasonable, that the checks were ambiguous and payable alternatively to the employee, and that Public Citizen's own negligence barred recovery. On appeal, the West Virginia Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lower court improperly applied 1993 UCC revisions retroactively and that the bank failed to follow reasonable commercial standards as a matter of law when it accepted the checks for deposit into the employee's personal account. The court did not reach the issue of the plaintiff's negligence.
The case involved Belinda Conrad's claims against her employer ARA Szabo and jail officials under the West Virginia Human Rights Act for sexual harassment by corrections officers and subsequent retaliation leading to her termination. The circuit court had dismissed claims against the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority and Edward Rudloff under Rule 12(b)(6), and granted summary judgment to ARA Szabo. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissals in part, allowing certain claims to proceed against some defendants, while affirming others, based on interpretations of who constitutes an "employer" under the Act, the scope of liability for discriminatory and retaliatory actions, and the applicability of the Act to former employees.
This case involved an original proceeding in which the Ohio County Education Association and its former president sought a writ of prohibition to halt a libel lawsuit brought by Dr. Thomas Romano. The suit stemmed from a newspaper advertisement and article in which the association criticized Dr. Romano and other physicians for withdrawing from West Virginia state insurance programs following the 1989 Omnibus Health Care Act, which required providers to accept all or none of the programs. The court granted the writ, barring further proceedings in the underlying libel action. The decision turned on analysis of Dr. Romano's status as a limited-purpose public figure in the public controversy over the Act, his access to media channels for rebuttal, and the resulting First Amendment standards requiring a showing of actual malice for liability.
