Franklin Cleckley

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.

procedurehealthcare

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.

business & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryproperty

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.

business & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

free speechtorts & liabilityhealthcare

The case centered on a property buyer who, after receiving assurances that his land was zoned for business use, was delayed in obtaining a building permit by the City of Huntington due to resident complaints, a temporary moratorium, and investigations into zoning and environmental issues. The plaintiff sued the city for damages covering extra construction costs incurred from the delay, alleging violations of state and federal due process protections. The West Virginia Supreme Court addressed the city's appeal of the jury verdict in the plaintiff's favor, upholding the award after finding that the city's refusal to act on the permit application without adequate process or justification supported liability under due process standards. The court reasoned that while municipalities may investigate permit requests, unexplained and extended delays without affording the applicant notice or opportunity to be heard can violate constitutional protections.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedurecivil rights

Phyllis Barlow sued her employer, Hester Industries, alleging age and sex discrimination and retaliation under the West Virginia Human Rights Act after she was terminated following her complaints about female employees' working conditions and compensation. Hester defended the termination based on Barlow's alleged misconduct and counterclaimed for breach of a confidentiality agreement, which the jury also rejected. The jury found no discrimination or retaliation, and the trial court denied Barlow's motion for a new trial. On appeal, Barlow challenged the denial of bifurcation, exclusion of certain evidence, admission of after-acquired evidence of misconduct, and several jury instructions regarding at-will employment, the burden of proof, legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons, and pretext. The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, finding no error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or instructions after reviewing the record.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Dimon v. Mansy, the plaintiff appealed after the circuit court struck his personal injury lawsuit from the docket under Rule 41(b) for over a year of inactivity and denied his motion to reinstate the case. The West Virginia Supreme Court addressed whether pre-dismissal notice was required and whether the lower court abused its discretion in denying reinstatement. The court reasoned that Rule 41(b) grants circuit courts discretion to dismiss inactive cases to promote judicial economy and prevent delays, with such dismissals operating as adjudications on the merits, but that pre-dismissal notice should be provided as a matter of sound judicial practice; it further held that plaintiffs bear the ongoing duty to prosecute their cases and that Rule 12(b)(6) standards do not apply to these determinations.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Hinkle, the defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after his vehicle crossed the centerline and collided with another car, resulting in one death; evidence at trial showed he had an undiagnosed brain disorder that could have caused sudden unconsciousness, though his blood alcohol level was negligible. The circuit court denied motions to dismiss, suppress evidence of alcohol, and for acquittal, and refused the defendant's proposed jury instruction on the insanity defense while also failing to instruct on unconsciousness as a distinct defense. On appeal, the West Virginia Supreme Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, holding that unconsciousness is analytically separate from insanity, that the trial court should have instructed the jury on the defense and the state's burden to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the omission could have affected the verdict given the evidence of a possible blackout of which the defendant was previously unaware.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved James L. Crabtree's appeal of convictions for malicious wounding, battery as a lesser-included offense, and recidivism arising from the 1993 assault of Patsy Morrison at boat docks in Huntington, West Virginia. The defendant challenged the admission of hearsay statements by a deceased alibi witness for impeachment only, the denial of funds for independent forensic testing of a stick found at the scene, ex parte communications by the trial judge with the jury during deliberations on instructions for lesser-included offenses, and the use of multiple prior felony convictions in the recidivist proceeding. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the hearsay was admissible with a limiting instruction, the testing denial was proper given the existing forensic match, the ex parte jury contacts caused no prejudice, and the recidivist statute was correctly applied by treating certain priors as a single qualifying felony. The court also noted that the defendant had been acquitted of one sexual assault count.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Larry Potter's convictions by a jury in Morgan County Circuit Court for three counts of first-degree sexual assault and three counts of sexual abuse by a custodian, stemming from repeated anal intercourse with seven-year-old Joshua H., a child from Potter's church whom he had befriended. Potter received consecutive sentences of 15-35 years for the assaults and concurrent terms for the abuse counts. On appeal, he challenged the admission of his confession to police, testimony by Reverend Martin Rudolph about their jailhouse conversation, and cross-examination regarding his religious beliefs as justification for the acts. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that Potter validly waived his Miranda rights including counsel, that the clergy privilege did not bar the testimony under the facts presented, and that the religious-belief evidence was properly admitted as curative or within the scope of cross-examination after the defense opened the door.

criminal lawprocedurereligious liberty

In State v. Blake, the defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and two counts of third-degree sexual assault arising from the 1984 killing and sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl in West Virginia. The court ordered a new trial on the murder charge after finding that the trial court improperly excluded evidence of a key prosecution witness's prior inconsistent statement during a polygraph examination, which prevented effective impeachment on cross-examination. The sexual assault convictions were affirmed because the remaining claims of error either lacked merit or were not preserved. The decision emphasized that cross-examination rights and the ability to introduce prior inconsistent omissions are fundamental to a fair trial under established evidentiary rules.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a mother's claims for personal injury, wrongful death, and spoliation of evidence arising from the 1989 death of her newborn daughter following labor and delivery at Raleigh General Hospital, where she alleged that medical negligence caused the death due to meconium aspiration rather than underdeveloped lungs as initially reported. The plaintiff did not file suit until 1994, after learning of the alleged true cause of death from medical records obtained in 1993. The circuit court dismissed the claims on motions under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the two-year statutes of limitations had expired and that alleged misrepresentations by non-defendant physicians did not toll the limitations periods under the discovery rule. The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the plaintiff failed to show that limited discovery would reveal any role by the named defendants in concealing facts or that the spoliation claim could proceed independently of the time-barred underlying actions.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

This case consolidated two mandamus actions in which citizens challenged the eligibility of deputy sheriffs to run for sheriff and magistrate in West Virginia without first resigning their civil service positions. The relators argued that the candidates improperly maintained civil service benefits such as seniority and recall rights while campaigning, violating statutes that restrict political activity by civil service employees, and sought orders preventing certification of the winners and removal of one candidate from the ballot. The court denied the petitions, holding that the relevant civil service statute does not clearly extend to unpaid leaves of absence or laid-off status and that the candidates had acted in good faith based on advice from state officials. The decision emphasized the absence of legislative history or explicit language barring such candidacies and declined to nullify election results for non-willful conduct. Topics include elections and labor & employment.

electionslabor & employment

The case involved plaintiff Alfred Skaggs, a disabled veteran hired by defendant Elk Run Coal Company as a mine safety administrator, who alleged that after a management change he was reassigned to physically demanding lab roles that exacerbated his condition, faced inadequate accommodations and harassment, and ultimately brought a disability discrimination claim. The trial court denied Skaggs's motion for a new trial after a defense verdict. On appeal, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court committed reversible error by giving Defendant's Instruction No. 7, which required proof of deliberate and specific discriminatory intent and thereby precluded liability based on subconscious bias or stereotypes; the court ordered a new trial while upholding other challenged instructions, including a business-judgment instruction.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a personal injury lawsuit by Dennis and Maria Bartles against Domino’s Pizza, a franchisee, and others arising from a 1988 car accident with a Domino’s delivery driver. After the trial court directed Domino’s to produce certain documents in response to multiple discovery requests and motions to compel, it found Domino’s had willfully failed to comply and imposed a $10,000 sanction. On appeal, the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion because Domino’s pattern of noncompliance with discovery orders justified the monetary sanction.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over whether correctional officer Jo Ann Perry was improperly terminated from her position with the Wayne County Sheriff's Office or had voluntarily quit following an incident on September 11, 1994, in which she reported sexual advances by an inmate, requested relief from her shift, and left work. The Wayne County Correctional Officers’ Civil Service Commission found that Perry had been improperly terminated and ordered her reinstatement with back pay, but the circuit court reversed that decision on the grounds that it was not supported by substantial evidence. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the circuit court, holding that the Commission’s determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record and that the circuit court had improperly substituted its judgment for that of the Commission as the factfinder. The Court emphasized that a circuit court may reverse a civil service commission’s factual findings only if they are clearly wrong or based on a mistake of law.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Angela Dawn Miller's appeal from her conviction for first-degree murder after she shot and killed Jerry White outside a bar in Wyoming County, West Virginia, in October 1993, following a confrontation that included drinking and disputes involving Miller, her associates, and the victim. Miller raised multiple claims of trial error, including that the indictment misinformed the jury on the elements of first-degree murder, the jury was improperly qualified or instructed, the prosecutor made prejudicial statements, the grand jury was misled, and she received ineffective assistance of counsel; she also asserted lack of premeditation and self-defense or defense of others. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and life sentence without mercy, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error on any of the asserted grounds and that the evidence supported the jury's findings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a 1991 lawsuit by the Powderidge Unit Owners Association against Highland Properties, Virginia Homes Manufacturing Corporation, and its insurer, alleging negligent construction of condominium units that caused extensive water damage, with repairs estimated over $600,000. The plaintiff claimed it did not discover the defects until 1990, but the defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds that the suit was barred by the two-year statute of limitations and res judicata, citing earlier 1984-1985 repairs and a related settlement. The circuit court granted summary judgment after allowing additional discovery time, finding the action untimely, and later denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed, holding that the record showed no genuine issue of material fact regarding when the plaintiff became aware of the problems and that the discovery period and reconsideration denial were proper under the rules of civil procedure.

propertyproceduretorts & liability