Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Higginbotham
West Virginia Supreme Court · 2011-11-23 · cited 33×
This case involves a malicious prosecution claim brought by James W. Higginbotham, a longtime railroad employee and part-owner of a construction business, against Norfolk Southern Railway Company and several of its officers. The claim arose after the company accused Higginbotham of stealing rail from a remote site in Kanawha County, leading to his temporary termination, an arbitration reinstatement, and a criminal indictment that was later dismissed. The circuit court denied the defendants' post-trial motions after finding as a matter of law that they had procured the prosecution. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed, holding that the trial court erred because the prosecutor independently decided to present the case to the grand jury, subpoena evidence, and pursue charges, despite some errors in the company's reports and grand jury testimony. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
criminal lawtorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory
STATE EX REL. WEST VIRGINIA CITIZEN ACTION GROUP v. Tomblin
West Virginia Supreme Court · 2011-01-18
The case concerned a vacancy in the West Virginia governor's office after Governor Joe Manchin resigned in November 2010 to become a U.S. Senator, with petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus to compel state officials to call a special election as soon as practicable in 2011. The Supreme Court of Appeals denied the writ against the House Speaker and Secretary of State but granted it against Senate President Earl Ray Tomblin in his role as acting governor, directing him to issue a proclamation setting an election date consistent with W. Va. Const. art. VII § 16 and W. Va. Code § 3-10-2. The court applied the three-part mandamus standard requiring a clear legal right, a corresponding duty, and no other adequate remedy, and interpreted the cited constitutional and statutory provisions to determine the proper timing for filling the vacancy rather than mandating an immediate 2011 election. It rejected arguments that would require an election outside the framework of those laws, noting that the next general election was scheduled for 2012.
elections
McMahon v. ADVANCE STORES CO., INC.
West Virginia Supreme Court · 2010-11-24 · cited 3×
The case involved a certified question from the Circuit Court of Ohio County regarding whether West Virginia Code § 46A-6-108(a) allows subsequent purchasers to sue for breach of a limited express warranty on a car battery that, by its terms, was available only to the original purchaser and expired upon sale of the vehicle. Plaintiffs Scott McMahon and Karen Jones sought relief after the battery failed, but Advance Auto Parts denied the claim because Jones was not the original buyer. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia answered the certified question in the negative and remanded the matter. The court reasoned that the warranty's explicit limitations on duration and eligible claimants controlled, and the cited statute did not extend those rights to subsequent purchasers in this context.
business & regulatory
Ullom v. Miller
West Virginia Supreme Court · 2010-11-23 · cited 53×
In Ullom v. Miller, the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles revoked Debbie Ullom's driver's license after her arrest for driving under the influence, based on an officer's observations during a check of her parked vehicle. The circuit court reversed the revocation, holding that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop and that the acquittal on criminal charges undermined the administrative findings. The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court, ruling that the officer's approach was justified under the community caretaker doctrine rather than as a seizure requiring suspicion, that the totality of circumstances supported the administrative finding of DUI by a preponderance of the evidence, and that a later criminal acquittal has no preclusive effect on the separate license revocation proceeding.
criminal lawprocedure
Harper v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc.
West Virginia Supreme Court · 2010-11-23 · cited 36×
The case is a putative class action brought by consumers against Jackson Hewitt, a tax preparation firm, alleging that the company violated West Virginia credit services organization (CSO) statutes and unfair or deceptive acts or practices provisions by assisting borrowers with refund anticipation loans and receiving compensation from lenders without proper disclosures. The U.S. District Court certified four questions to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals concerning whether such tax preparers qualify as CSOs, the applicable statute of limitations for the claims, the enforceability of contractual disclaimers of agency, and whether the preparer acts as an agent under state law. The court reformulated the questions, answered them through statutory interpretation of the Consumer Credit and Protection Act and common-law agency principles (including that agency can arise from conduct despite disclaimers), and remanded for further proceedings consistent with those answers.
business & regulatoryprocedure
State v. Eilola
West Virginia Supreme Court · 2010-11-23 · cited 40×
In State v. Eilola, the defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and related offenses after being held in custody for 495 days because he could not post a $50,000 cash bond, and he received consecutive sentences totaling several years. The circuit court initially applied the presentence credit to the first sentence but later amended the commitment order, following State v. Middleton, to credit the time only against the aggregated maximum term so that it would not advance the parole eligibility date. On appeal, the defendant argued that Middleton should be reconsidered on equal protection grounds because denying credit for parole purposes disadvantages indigent defendants who cannot post bond. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the circuit court's sentencing orders and remanded with directions, holding that presentence incarceration credit must be applied to advance parole eligibility to avoid unconstitutional disparities between indigent and non-indigent defendants.
criminal lawprocedurecivil rights