Richard Forlani Neely

The case concerned claims by the State of West Virginia against Morgan Stanley & Co. arising from the state's active trading of government securities through its Consolidated Fund investment pool in the mid-1980s, which resulted in substantial losses during a 1987 market downturn; the state had obtained a $52 million summary judgment and a $4.9 million jury verdict for constructive fraud. The court held that neither the summary judgment nor the fraud verdict was proper and reversed both. The opinion reviewed the history of the fund's management, changes in investment guidelines, the state's direct dealings with securities dealers including Morgan Stanley, and principles governing damages in tort actions involving alleged fraud or trespass, concluding that the legal standards for liability and damages had not been met.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved the City of Morgantown seeking to impose its Business and Occupation tax on the West Virginia University Medical Corporation, arguing that the corporation's primary purpose was billing and collecting fees rather than charitable activities. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the lower court's decision that WVUMC is exempt from the tax as a charitable organization. The court reasoned that WVUMC is a non-profit entity organized exclusively for charitable, scientific, and educational purposes, supports the university's medical school mission, provides substantial uncompensated care without regard to patients' ability to pay, and does not distribute earnings to private individuals, consistent with exemptions under state tax statutes.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved Eleanor Chambers' conviction for first-degree arson after her home burned, with the prosecution presenting evidence that she was offered but declined a polygraph test. The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that references to a defendant's offer or refusal to take a polygraph are inadmissible in criminal trials. The court reasoned that such evidence creates the same unreliable and prejudicial inferences about guilt or innocence as actual polygraph results, which are already barred under state precedent like State v. Frazier. It found the admission to be plain error, even without objection, and remanded the case.

criminal lawprocedure

Samuel Martin Moore was convicted in Wood County Circuit Court of first-degree sexual abuse and burglary after breaking into a home at night, attempting sexual contact with a child, and stealing money and other items. He appealed on multiple grounds, including that his competency evaluation was improperly conducted by only one psychologist rather than the required professionals, that his confession was inadmissible due to his mild mental retardation and possible intoxication, and that the evidence was insufficient without the confession to prove intent. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the convictions, ruling that the trial court committed no reversible error because the competency statute was satisfied or the issue was not properly preserved, Moore knowingly waived his Miranda rights without coercion, and the confession plus other evidence supported the jury's findings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a mandamus action by West Virginia state troopers challenging 1994 amendments to the public safety pension system that raised employee contribution rates from 6% to 9%, eliminated credit for unused sick and annual leave toward retirement eligibility, and lowered the annual cost-of-living annuity adjustment from 3.75% to 2%. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that these changes unconstitutionally impaired the troopers' contract rights under Article III, Section 4 of the state constitution once employees had relied on the prior plan terms through years of service. The court reasoned that public employees' pension expectations become protected after detrimental reliance and partial performance of their employment obligations, preventing unilateral reductions by the legislature without employee consent or actuarial buyouts in early career stages. Accordingly, the court granted the writ to the extent the amendments violated these principles.

labor & employment

This case involved recreational users of Kumbrabow State Forest challenging a proposed timber sale by the West Virginia Division of Forestry to Coastal Lumber, Inc., on 162 acres. The plaintiffs argued that the Division needed approval from the Public Lands Corporation under W.Va. Code 20-1A-3(4) before selling timber and that the sale violated the Division's statutory mandate to manage forests for multiple uses. The circuit court dismissed the petition for injunctive and declaratory relief and dissolved a temporary injunction, and the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that W.Va. Code 20-1-7(13) and 19-1A-1 et seq. unambiguously authorize the Division to sell timber with the Governor's written approval, without requiring Public Lands Corporation approval, as the transaction was forest management rather than a land consolidation or transfer. The court further found that the selective-cut plan, which targeted diseased trees and preserved most of the forest, complied with the multiple-use mandate, supported by evidence from forestry experts and other agencies.

environmentpropertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved state troopers employed by the West Virginia Division of Public Safety who were injured in the line of duty and sought coverage under the state's Workers’ Compensation Fund, either through a mandamus action by three troopers or an appeal by a fourth who had filed a claim. The Circuit Court denied the writ of mandamus, and the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board denied the claim; both decisions were appealed and consolidated. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that state troopers are not covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act. The court reasoned that the Legislature created the separate Death, Disability and Retirement Fund specifically for troopers, never intended or funded their participation in the Workers’ Compensation Fund despite mandatory subscription requirements for other state agencies, and viewed the DDR Fund as a comprehensive alternative system based on historical legislative actions and reports from DPS superintendents.

labor & employment

This case involved two former City of Huntington firefighters who filed a declaratory judgment action seeking benefits allegedly due under a collective bargaining agreement upon their retirement. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the city and dismissed the suit with prejudice, ruling that the six-month federal statute of limitations in Section 10(b) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(b), barred the claim and preempted state law. On appeal, the West Virginia Supreme Court reversed, holding that the federal limitations period does not apply because a municipal corporation is not an "employer" covered by the LMRA and therefore federal law does not preempt West Virginia's longer statute of limitations for contract actions. The court also noted that the city had been permitted to amend its answer to raise the limitations defense.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

The case involves foreign national apple pickers employed temporarily in West Virginia orchards from 1983 to 1989 who alleged that certain wage deductions for meals and insurance violated the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act. Plaintiffs sued both the corporate employer Grapevine and individual orchardist defendants who were shareholders, claiming the individuals were also employers under the Act despite not signing the contracts or handling payroll. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the individuals, finding they were not employers and that the claims were subject to a five-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the individuals qualified as employers due to their primary day-to-day supervision of the workers on their property and that the limitations period issue needed reevaluation based on the nature of the claims.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Hadorn v. Shea, a policyholder sued her underinsured motorist insurer, State Farm, seeking recovery of attorneys' fees and costs after a jury awarded her $90,000 on a personal injury claim stemming from a car accident, contending she had substantially prevailed over the insurer's pretrial settlement offers of up to $22,500 following her $300,000 demand. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit court's summary judgment for State Farm, ruling that the plaintiff did not substantially prevail at trial and therefore was not entitled to reimbursement of her expenses. The court clarified that substantial prevailing is assessed based on the status of negotiations when they broke down, comparing the jury award to the parties' positions on the claim as a whole rather than the verdict in isolation.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Hopkins, the defendant was convicted by a jury of third-offense shoplifting after the state introduced evidence of his three prior shoplifting convictions from 1987 and 1988, resulting in a sentence of one to ten years in prison plus fines. Hopkins appealed, claiming errors including the admission of statements made without Miranda warnings, failure to sever evidence of prior convictions, improper use of uncounseled prior convictions to enhance the sentence, and an unconstitutional mandatory fine. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that a sentencing court may consider a defendant's previous valid uncounseled misdemeanor convictions when imposing punishment for a subsequent offense, and that the prior convictions were properly proven and used as sentencing enhancements rather than elements of the crime.

criminal law

The case involved a petition by R.L. to prohibit his prosecution under an indictment for first-degree sexual abuse that was returned by a grand jury after presentation by a private citizen alleging incidents from seventeen years earlier. The indictment was signed by the grand jury foreperson but lacked the attestation of the prosecuting attorney required by W.Va. Code 62-9-1. The court denied the petition and held that the prosecutor's attestation is not required when an indictment is sought directly by a private citizen rather than the prosecutor, provided the foreperson's signature is otherwise proper. The decision overruled prior cases requiring such attestation in all circumstances. The reasoning centered on the constitutional right of citizens to seek judicial redress for injuries and the fact that the prosecutor had not refused to act but had merely delayed presentation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved two county boards of education challenging the constitutionality of W.Va. Code 18A-4-5 as amended in 1988, which governs state equity pay supplements for teacher and service personnel salaries. The boards argued that the statute failed to fix constitutional defects in the funding formula identified in a prior case, specifically by continuing to reduce equity payments based on discontinued local excess levies even after voters failed to renew them. The circuit court upheld the statute, but the West Virginia Supreme Court reversed, holding that the 1988 amendments violate equal protection by creating unequal salary outcomes among counties. The core reasoning centered on how the law treats counties that once had excess levies differently from others, resulting in lower overall compensation for employees in Randolph and Upshur counties without a valid basis under the state constitution's equal protection provisions.

civil rightslabor & employmenttaxes

The case concerned a newspaper's FOIA request to the City of Williamstown for a redacted copy of a police incident report involving a fight between two juveniles and a gun, which the city denied on grounds that the report was part of a law enforcement file and concerned juveniles. The circuit court dismissed the newspaper's complaint, ruling that the report was exempt from disclosure under the law enforcement exemption and was not a public record due to the involvement of juveniles. The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed, holding that police incident reports qualify as public records under the broad statutory definition of writings relating to the conduct of the public's business. The court reasoned that the FOIA must be liberally construed to favor disclosure of government affairs, that redaction can adequately protect juvenile identities, and that the public has an interest in information about criminal activity in the community.

free speechcriminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Mauser Hall Partnership suing its surveyor, Fred Gates, for professional negligence and fraud after he failed to properly assess severe soil percolation problems on the property, concealed a negative expert report, and continued billing for work on a residential subdivision project that could not obtain required health department approvals. A jury awarded the Partnership $50,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages, and the circuit court added prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. On appeal, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in full, finding the evidence sufficient to support both the negligence and fraud claims and rejecting all assignments of error regarding damages, fees, and procedural issues.

torts & liabilitypropertybusiness & regulatory

The case involves a statutory receiver for an insolvent West Virginia insurance company suing its former officers, directors, accountants, and lawyers for allegedly looting over $15 million through misconduct, professional negligence, and self-dealing. The U.S. District Court certified questions to the West Virginia Supreme Court on whether the state recognizes the 'adverse domination' doctrine to toll statutes of limitations for the receiver's tort claims against those dominating the company and whether the doctrine applies despite a prior settled shareholder derivative action by the parent company's shareholders. The court answered both questions affirmatively, holding that adverse domination tolls the limitations period because shareholders acting as the corporation may lack interest in pursuing claims, leaving no one to protect corporate causes of action, particularly where the receiver acts to safeguard policyholders, creditors, and the public. The decision emphasizes that the doctrine accounts for the legal fiction of shareholder representation in dominated entities.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a lawsuit by Joanna Porter Wheeler, who was injured in a car accident, against Joseph Murphy for substantially assisting or encouraging the intoxication of driver J.C. Cottrill, whose blood alcohol level was 0.28 and whose actions caused a collision that killed both drivers and injured Wheeler. The plaintiff appealed the circuit court's enforcement of a jury verdict in Murphy's favor, raising issues including jury selection errors and evidentiary rulings. The court affirmed the verdict, holding that evidence of Murphy passing alcohol or serving drinks did not establish liability for aiding the driver's violation of motor vehicle laws, and procedural matters like excusing a juror or references to insurance did not require reversal. The reasoning emphasized that social hosts do not automatically face liability for serving alcohol and that the facts did not show Murphy substantially encouraged the dangerous conduct leading to the crash.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved five female licensed practical nurses employed by a state hospital who filed a grievance after learning that a coworker with the same job classification was paid at a higher step within the pay grade, resulting in an 18 percent salary difference for identical work. The nurses argued that the disparity violated principles of equal pay for equal work as well as their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process under state civil service rules. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the lower court's decision upholding the administrative ruling in favor of the state agencies. The court reasoned that West Virginia law and personnel rules permit agencies to set starting salaries above the minimum step based on an applicant's superior qualifications, training, experience, and market conditions at the time of hiring, and that D.M. met these criteria when originally employed; the court further noted that all employees were female, so no sex-based discrimination was at issue under the Equal Pay Act or related standards.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved whether West Virginia's Attorney General must pay costs and attorneys' fees incurred by Fahlgren Martin, Inc. in a prior mandamus action that compelled the Attorney General to approve a state lottery advertising contract as to form. The court granted a writ of prohibition, ruling that the Attorney General was not required to pay the approximately $75,000 in fees and costs. The core reasoning was that the Attorney General did not willfully disobey the law, as the case presented a novel question about the scope of the Attorney General's duties under the relevant statute without prior detailed precedent on the matter.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a 1989 car-train collision in West Virginia that killed Deborah Jewell, prompting a wrongful death suit by her estate against Stanley Bowen (a passenger who escaped) and the railroad, which in turn raised questions about liability insurance coverage under a Kentucky-issued State Farm policy on the vehicle. After a jury found Bowen 100% at fault and awarded $400,000, the estate pursued direct claims against State Farm for the excess verdict and bad-faith practices, while State Farm sought a declaratory judgment on coverage issues including whether Bowen qualified as an additional insured and whether his non-cooperation relieved the insurer of obligations. The West Virginia Supreme Court held that West Virginia law governed the policy's mandatory coverage provisions and that Bowen was entitled to coverage as an additional insured, but it reversed the circuit court's determination that Bowen's alleged failure to cooperate had no effect on liability, remanding for further proceedings to assess the impact under applicable precedents.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory