Edwin F. Flowers

This case involved a dispute over a mechanic's lien filed by contractor Carroll M. Earp against property owners Selwyn and Lila Vanderpool for unpaid work developing a subdivision tract in Wayne County, West Virginia, including road grading, culvert installation, and septic system work under an oral contract. The Vanderpools contested the lien, claiming the work was unauthorized, unworkmanlike, and overpriced, and filed a counterclaim for breach of contract damages. After a jury awarded Earp nearly the full unpaid balance of $17,813.47, the trial court denied a new trial motion and entered judgment for the plaintiff. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court committed plain error by failing to provide any jury instructions on the defendants' counterclaim and defenses, which were central to the case and affected the fairness of the proceedings.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a rear-end collision on a wet, curved highway where plaintiff Clarence King, a mail carrier, had pulled his vehicle onto the berm to deliver mail; he sued defendant Joseph Bittinger for personal injuries, and his wife Lillian sued for loss of consortium. A jury awarded King only his stipulated medical bills of $547.86 (with no recovery for pain, suffering, or lost wages) and found for the defendant against Lillian King. The trial court denied the Kings' motions to set aside the verdicts and grant a new trial, leading to this appeal. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed, holding that an instruction on contributory negligence was proper because slight evidence supported it (including possible partial obstruction of the highway or limited visibility), but the damages were inadequate as they excluded proven elements like pain and suffering and lost wages, and liability was not so clearly established as to limit a new trial to damages alone; accordingly, the court ordered a new trial on all issues.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a mandamus action brought by the President of the West Virginia Senate, the Speaker of the House of Delegates, and a legislative committee against the Governor to compel him to fill a vacancy in the position of superintendent of the West Virginia Industrial Home for Girls, which had existed for over two years after the prior incumbent's forced resignation under the federal Hatch Act. The court first addressed preliminary issues of standing and mootness, determining that the individual relators had standing as citizens and taxpayers to enforce a public duty and that the case was not moot because the legislature could be reconvened. On the merits, the court held that the Governor's constitutional duty under Article VII, Section 8 to nominate and submit appointees for Senate confirmation, while involving discretion in selection, is not discretionary as to whether or when to act, and that mandamus may compel the exercise of that duty after an unreasonable delay. The court therefore issued a writ requiring the Governor to nominate a candidate and submit the name to the Senate at its next meeting.

procedure

This case concerned the constitutionality of West Virginia's prejudgment attachment-garnishment procedures under Article 7, Chapter 38 of the state code, specifically whether they satisfy federal and state due process requirements. A contractor sued a corporation for unpaid work and obtained an ex parte attachment order from the circuit clerk based on an affidavit alleging the defendant was removing assets from the state to defraud creditors. The circuit court quashed the attachment, holding the statutes unconstitutional for failing to provide preseizure notice and a hearing on the probable validity of the claim. On appeal, the court reviewed U.S. Supreme Court precedents including Sniadach, Fuentes, Mitchell, and North Georgia Finishing, noting that later decisions permit such remedies when statutes include adequate post-seizure review, bond protections, and other safeguards.

procedurepropertycivil rights

This case involved a dispute over a promissory note for $94,073.48 executed by defendant George T. Martin in favor of Claude C. Casto, issued in connection with the transfer of McKay Corporation stock as part of a larger transaction to sell bank stock to Donald Carman. After Carman defaulted on his payments, leading Martin to repurchase the stock at foreclosure, Casto's widow as executrix sued to enforce the note, which had remained in the possession of Martin's attorney. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff based on a jury verdict for the full note amount, which was affirmed on intermediate appeal. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed and directed entry of judgment for the defendant, holding that the note's delivery was subject to a condition precedent that was never satisfied, that an unauthenticated memorandum was improperly admitted into evidence, and that an erroneous jury instruction had been given regarding conditional delivery.

business & regulatory

The case involved the City of Morgantown's petition to annex approximately 644 acres, mostly city-owned airport land, as a minor boundary adjustment under West Virginia Code 8-6-5. The County Commission denied the petition after a hearing, finding the acreage too large to qualify as a minor adjustment and that it would create unreasonable boundaries, but the Circuit Court reversed and ordered the annexation. On appeal by the County Commission to the Supreme Court of Appeals, the court dismissed the writ of error, holding that the County Commission lacked statutory authority or standing as an aggrieved party to appeal its own administrative decision in annexation proceedings, as its role was purely administrative rather than that of a litigant with a personal or official interest.

propertyprocedure

In this habeas corpus proceeding, relator Robin Dale Johnson, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in Logan County Circuit Court, sought absolute discharge after the state failed to provide a trial transcript despite his timely requests following three separate sentencings. The court considered whether the inordinate delay in transcript preparation, which prevented perfection of an appeal within the statutory period under W. Va. Code 58-5-4, denied the relator due process by effectively eliminating his right to appellate review. Drawing on Griffin v. Illinois and related precedents, the opinion analyzes the principle that due process requires furnishing a transcript upon timely request, reexamines resentencing as a remedy, and evaluates the concept of discharge in habeas corpus when appellate rights are frustrated by state inaction.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case concerned the enforceability of land-use restrictions in a Kanawha County subdivision, where plaintiffs sought to enjoin defendants from converting lots into a cemetery rather than using them for residential purposes, citing oral representations at sale and restrictive language in a 1941 will. The circuit court had granted the injunction based on an implied covenant, but the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed that judgment. The court reasoned that the will's directive against cemetery use was personal to the testator and his sons rather than creating an enforceable benefit to the land, and that oral statements could not impose a negative easement or restrictive covenant on subsequent purchasers without satisfying the statute of frauds. It also noted that appellate jurisdiction after the 1974 Judicial Reorganization Amendment rested solely with this Court.

property

The case involved homeowners who purchased builder's risk insurance policies covering an apartment building under construction and related materials and supplies. Certain materials stored in the basement of a building across the street but within 100 feet of the insured premises were destroyed by fire, and the insurers denied coverage. The trial court ruled that the policy language was unambiguous and did not cover the materials because they were not on the described premises. On appeal, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that the policy provision was ambiguous as to the scope of coverage for materials stored within 100 feet and construed it liberally in favor of the insured to extend coverage to any location within that distance, whether in the open or in another building. The court also found that the trial court's findings satisfied Rule 52 despite lacking separate designations and reversed and remanded the case.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Louk v. Haynes, the petitioner sought habeas corpus relief after his probation was revoked following a guilty plea to selling marijuana, resulting in a one-to-five-year suspended sentence. The circuit court had imposed numerous probation conditions, including requirements to live and work on a specific farm, attend church, maintain a curfew, and avoid certain locations, and later revoked probation for alleged violations of those conditions without a preliminary hearing. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals determined that the revocation was improper because it rested on void conditions that violated due process and constituted an abuse of discretion, that the original judge lacked impartiality, and that procedural guarantees such as proper notice and hearings were not followed. The court therefore awarded the writ, ordered the original judge recused, and directed reinstatement of probation under reasonable terms set by a new judge. The decision focused on constitutional scrutiny of the plea, sentencing, probation terms, revocation proceedings, and judicial bias.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case concerns a mandamus action filed by Russell C. Dunbar to compel the Cabell County circuit clerk to accept his candidacy filing for the unexpired term of a deceased circuit judge following the Judicial Reorganization Amendment. The court held that the amendment extended the judge's term until December 31, 1984, so his death created a vacancy in that extended term rather than terminating it early, requiring the vacancy to be filled by election at the 1976 general election for the remaining period. The decision rested on the plain language of Article VIII, Section 7 of the amended constitution, which synchronized judicial terms while preserving unexpired portions exceeding two years for electoral filling under W. Va. Code 3-10-3. Ballots must distinguish the unexpired-term position from new full terms beginning in 1977.

electionsprocedure

This case involved a dispute between two family-owned retail businesses, both using variations of the surname 'Cox' in their trade names, over the right to operate under that name in Wood County, West Virginia. A. W. Cox Department Store Co. sued Cox’s Incorporated, which was opening a competing store nearby, alleging trade name infringement due to customer confusion. The trial court enjoined the defendant from using 'Cox' or similar names in the area, and the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. The court reasoned that although individuals generally have the right to use their own surnames in business, direct evidence of actual confusion between the similar retail operations in a confined geographic market supported the injunction, and the trial court's factual findings were not plainly wrong.

business & regulatory

The case concerned a low bidder on a municipal sewer construction contract who sued the mayor of Charleston to compel award of the contract and enjoin any award to the second-lowest bidder. The trial court found the plaintiff a responsible bidder with taxpayer standing, held that the city abused its discretion by not awarding to the lowest bidder, and granted injunctive relief without requiring an injunction bond or joining the city and the other bidder as parties. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the judgment, concluding that the plaintiff was not exempt from the statutory requirement to post an injunction bond, that procedural defects existed including the failure to join indispensable parties, and that the trial court's rulings on standing and discretion were erroneous.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this habeas corpus proceeding, Charles Trembly sought release from jail after being held in contempt for failing to pay increased child support and the full cost of his daughter's college education as ordered by the circuit court. The court had previously ratified a property settlement agreement setting support at $200 monthly plus aid for college expenses, but later modified the order to require Trembly to cover all college costs in addition to the monthly payments. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that the circuit court possessed continuing statutory jurisdiction under W. Va. Code § 48-2-15 to alter child support provisions notwithstanding the earlier agreement, as the welfare of minor children takes precedence. However, the court concluded that the modified order amounted to an abuse of discretion given Trembly's limited income and necessary expenses, and therefore discharged him from custody while noting that further support adjustments could be considered on remand.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over unpaid rent and possession of rental property, in which Parkway Fuel Service sued Roy Pauley in the Circuit Court of Putnam County. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff for $4,000 and possession after hearing only arguments of counsel, despite the defendant's general denial, demand for a jury trial, and objection, and without making findings of fact or taking evidence. On appeal, the plaintiff moved to dismiss on procedural grounds including the defendant's failure to file a brief and lack of prior motions under Rules 59 or 60, and argued that an affidavit supporting the appeal was improper. The Supreme Court of Appeals denied the motion to dismiss, holding that an appeal is available from a final judgment without prior post-judgment motions, that an affidavit without notice cannot be considered but the record alone showed a proper basis for appeal, and that the trial court violated Rule 52 by failing to make findings of fact in a non-jury trial. The court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Dorsel E. Bailey's conviction for grand larceny of an automobile after he took a vehicle without permission while allegedly intoxicated. Bailey challenged the indictment on grounds that a sheriff's employee served on the grand jury, violating statutory disqualification rules for officeholders and raising bias concerns, and argued that the trial court erred by refusing a jury instruction on the lesser offense of joyriding. The court ruled that the grand juror was not disqualified under the relevant statute and that joyriding was not a lesser included offense because it requires proof of intent to temporarily deprive the owner rather than permanently, leading to affirmance of the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is an appeal from a grand larceny conviction in which the defendant was found guilty of stealing a 1969 Chrysler automobile from a car dealership after taking it on a test drive and failing to return it. The defendant raised three issues on appeal: whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a pretrial motion for a psychiatric examination, whether a mistrial should have been granted due to testimony about a collateral crime, and whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the element of intent. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant failed to provide evidence supporting the need for a mental examination and explicitly declined to pursue it, that any improper testimony about the collateral crime was cured by the trial court's prompt instruction to the jury to disregard it, and that the evidence of the defendant's use of an alias, failure to return the vehicle, and subsequent sale of it in another state was sufficient for the jury to find felonious intent. The topics are criminal law and procedure.

criminal lawprocedure