Brent D. Benjamin

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Jarvis v. West Virginia State Police, plaintiffs Betty Jarvis and Wanda Carney sued the state police and several troopers after their convictions for obstruction of justice and conspiracy—stemming from actions during a murder investigation—were reversed for insufficient evidence. The plaintiffs alleged retaliatory prosecution in violation of their constitutional rights and negligence. The circuit court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, but the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed, holding that the retaliatory prosecution claim failed because the complaints did not allege with particularity that the indictments were fraudulently obtained, and the negligence claim could not overcome qualified immunity. The court applied precedents presuming probable cause in prosecutions and requiring specific pleading for fraud-related claims.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a wrongful death lawsuit filed in West Virginia by the Canadian mother of a passenger killed in a 2008 airplane crash in Virginia. The plaintiff sued the Canadian pilot's estate and a Canadian corporation that co-owned the plane, alleging that the pilot's negligent decision in Charleston, West Virginia, to continue the flight despite adverse weather and icing conditions proximately caused the deaths. The circuit court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants and forum non conveniens. The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the lower court erred because the defendants' tortious acts and omissions in West Virginia provided a basis for jurisdiction under the state's long-arm statute.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a certified question from the Circuit Court of Fayette County regarding the requirements for charging third-offense domestic battery as a felony under West Virginia Code § 61-2-28(d). The defendant had prior domestic battery convictions from 1998 and 2004, and the current offense occurred in 2009. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that the statute requires the current offense to occur within ten years of only one prior qualifying conviction, not both, answering the certified question in the negative. The court reached this conclusion through a plain-language reading of the statutory phrase requiring the offense to occur 'within ten years of a prior conviction of any of these offenses,' finding the text unambiguous.

criminal law

This case concerned the admissibility of digital photographs as evidence in legal proceedings. The court ruled in favor of admitting such evidence, concurring that the Rules of Civil Procedure should evolve to accommodate technological advancements. The reasoning emphasized that while digital imaging offers benefits like easy copying without degradation, it also presents risks of data corruption and manipulation, requiring courts and counsel to ensure authenticity, relevance, and reliability through proper evidentiary processes, much like with traditional film photography.

criminal lawprocedure

The case arose from a car accident in which plaintiff Guy Cunningham was injured by an underinsured driver and sought benefits under two separate underinsured motorist policies issued by Erie and State Farm on different vehicles owned by the Cunninghams. Each policy contained "other insurance" clauses providing that total recovery from multiple policies would not exceed the highest single policy limit, resulting in payments totaling $100,000. The circuit court certified the question of whether these limiting provisions were valid and enforceable. The court held that the provisions were invalid and unenforceable, reasoning that they conflicted with the public policy and full-compensation mandate of W. Va. Code § 33-6-31(b) where the insureds had paid separate premiums to separate insurers without receiving a multi-car discount. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a juvenile, Larry T., who was charged in Kanawha County Circuit Court with first-degree sexual abuse based on allegations that he had sexual contact with a 10-year-old victim shortly before his eighteenth birthday. After a juvenile petition was filed and the appellant entered a not-guilty plea at arraignment, the State moved to transfer the case to adult criminal jurisdiction under W. Va. Code § 49-5-10; the circuit court granted the transfer following a hearing. On appeal, the West Virginia Supreme Court reversed the transfer order and remanded the matter to juvenile jurisdiction. The court held that the transfer motion was untimely because it was filed after the appellant's arraignment and plea, violating the statutory requirement that such motions be made before the adjudicatory hearing or plea. The decision rested on the plain language of the juvenile-transfer statute and the legislative preference for juvenile jurisdiction in ordinary cases.

criminal lawprocedurefamily law

The case involved the Marshall County Commission seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent an administrative law judge from conducting an in camera review of an audio recording of an executive session discussing the hiring of a telecommunications operator, in connection with a disability discrimination complaint filed by applicant John R. Briggs under the West Virginia Human Rights Act. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied the writ, rejecting claims that the recording was protected by an executive session privilege, attorney-client privilege, or work product doctrine. The court reasoned that no such executive session privilege exists to shield the material from discovery, as it would disadvantage public employees relative to private sector employees and impede access to motive evidence essential for proving employment discrimination claims.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns whether a man who has formed a parental bond with a child must continue providing support after DNA testing reveals he is not the biological father. The court ruled that the established legal parent's duty of support remains in effect and cannot be extinguished by the absence of a genetic link. The core reasoning is that a child's right to financial support is fundamental under West Virginia law, guided by the child's best interests rather than adult emotions or relationships, and that fatherhood encompasses more than biology once parental responsibilities have been assumed. Prior precedents on paternity and child support were applied to prioritize the child's welfare over the interests of the adults involved.

family law

The case involved landowners in a residential development in Monroe County, West Virginia, who appealed the county assessor's 2007 ad valorem property tax assessments, arguing the valuations were excessive, unequal compared to other properties, and resulted from discriminatory methods that violated equal and uniform taxation under the state constitution as well as equal protection and due process under the federal constitution. The circuit court denied their petition for appeal, and the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The court reasoned that the assessor properly determined true and actual value based on recent sales data and regulations, the taxpayers failed to meet their burden of presenting evidence showing the assessments were erroneous or excessive, only one petitioner had properly perfected its appeal, and prior precedent had upheld the constitutionality of the review process.

taxespropertyprocedure

The case involved consolidated appeals by two defendants convicted of driving under the influence after being stopped at a roadblock in Gauley Bridge, West Virginia, that was unilaterally set up by a single officer without written guidelines, reflective gear, or other standardized procedures. The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's rulings that denied motions to suppress the resulting evidence. The core reasoning was that the stops violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution because they were not conducted randomly, with predetermined written operational guidelines, or with minimal officer discretion, rendering them unreasonable seizures.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case arose from a federal lawsuit by a West Virginia dealer against an out-of-state manufacturer alleging improper termination of a distributorship for road maintenance spreaders and related equipment, with claims including violation of the West Virginia Farm Equipment Dealer Contract Act. The U.S. District Court certified a question to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals on whether the Act's scope is limited to farm equipment, based on its short title, or extends more broadly. The court held that the Act applies to dealers and suppliers of farm, construction, industrial, or outdoor power equipment, or any combination thereof. Its reasoning relied on the Act's full title, its explicit definitions in W. Va. Code § 47-11F-2, and precedent liberally construing statutory titles to validate all germane provisions under the state constitution's single-object requirement.

business & regulatory

This case arose when Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital sought a declaratory judgment in federal district court regarding coverage under a St. Paul insurance policy for a multi-million-dollar jury verdict in an underlying wrongful death and medical professional liability action that included both covered medical injury claims and non-covered claims such as spoliation, outrage, and punitive damages. The district court certified two questions to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals asking which party bears the burden of proving whether the undifferentiated verdict fell within policy coverage. The court answered that, under West Virginia law, when an insurance policy imposes no duty to defend and the insured is a sophisticated entity that controlled the defense, the insured bears the burden of allocating the verdict between covered and non-covered conduct or claims. The reasoning rested on the policy language granting the insurer only a right to associate in the defense, the absence of any contractual allocation mechanism, and the insured's superior ability to track and document the basis for liability.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute between the State of West Virginia and participating tobacco manufacturers under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement regarding whether the State's diligent enforcement of its qualifying statute for 2003 (which would exempt it from the Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment reducing annual payments) must be decided in state court or through nationwide arbitration. The circuit court granted the manufacturers' motion to compel arbitration before a panel of three former federal judges and stayed the State's declaratory judgment action. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the MSA's plain language in the dispute resolution section requires binding arbitration of any controversy arising out of or relating to the independent auditor's calculations and determinations, including application of the NPM Adjustment and related exemptions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved an appeal by employers Sue and William Erps from a West Virginia Human Rights Commission order finding them liable for creating a hostile work environment and retaliatory discharge after African-American employee Victor Peoples was called a racial slur by a white coworker following Peoples' own racially charged taunts, complained to his supervisor, refused an order to return to work, and was fired. The Commission had adopted an administrative law judge's findings after an evidentiary hearing, awarding Peoples over $32,000 in lost wages, interest, and damages. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that Peoples failed to establish a hostile work environment claim because his own conduct raised issues of welcomeness and there were no prior incidents, while addressing but not fully resolving the retaliation aspects based on the employer's response and the employee's actions.

civil rightslabor & employment