This case involved Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company seeking a writ of prohibition to bar enforcement of circuit court orders compelling its president, CEO, and chairman Roger Crandall to sit for depositions in two civil actions alleging fraud and tax fraud in the sale and transfer of 412i retirement plan annuities. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia granted the writ. The court reasoned that Crandall had no personal or unique knowledge of the plaintiffs' transactions, that the apex deposition rule protects high-ranking corporate officers from deposition absent a showing of such knowledge after less intrusive discovery methods have been pursued, and that the circuit court's orders therefore constituted clear error.
The case concerned a petition by the maternal grandmother of a 15-year-old boy to be appointed his permanent guardian after he nominated her, which was opposed by his biological mother who had not been found unfit. The family court denied the petition, and the circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the denial, holding that West Virginia Code § 44-10-4 does not require appointment of a guardian nominated by a minor over 14 when doing so would infringe on a fit biological parent's constitutional right to custody of the child. The court reasoned that the statute must be interpreted consistently with parental rights precedents, such as In re Abbigail Faye B., and that a third-party guardianship cannot override those rights absent unfitness or other statutory grounds.
The case involved Petitioner Gregory Smith, a Mingo County Commissioner, who after successfully defending against a petition to remove him from office under West Virginia Code § 6-6-7, filed for a writ of mandamus to compel the county commission and sheriff to reimburse approximately $53,000 in attorney fees and costs. The circuit court denied the writ, ruling that Smith had not established a clear legal right to relief because he could have requested fees from the three-judge panel that heard the removal petition and that this Court's earlier decision in Powers v. Goodwin was no longer controlling due to statutory changes. This Court reversed, explaining that the relevant portion of Powers remains good law for assessing reimbursement claims by public officials and that the circuit court had misapplied the three required elements for mandamus—clear legal right, legal duty by the respondent, and lack of another adequate remedy—before remanding for further proceedings under that standard.
This case concerns the termination of benefits for B.H. under West Virginia's Medicaid Mentally Retarded/Developmentally Disabled Waiver Program, a joint federal-state initiative providing home and community-based services instead of institutional care for individuals with developmental disabilities like autism. B.H., who has autism but no mental retardation diagnosis and an IQ of 78, had received benefits since 1999 until the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) discontinued them in 2008 for failing to meet eligibility criteria on major life areas. The circuit court reversed the termination and ordered reinstatement, and the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The core reasoning was that the DHHR bore the burden of proving a change in B.H.'s medical condition or improvement since the initial eligibility determination, and it failed to present such evidence, making further analysis of other eligibility factors unnecessary.
The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit filed in West Virginia by the estate of a North Carolina resident who died allegedly from a fentanyl pain patch manufactured by the Mylan defendants, two of which were West Virginia corporations. The circuit court dismissed the action on forum non conveniens grounds under W. Va. Code § 56-1-1a, finding North Carolina a more convenient forum. The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute is ambiguous and must be interpreted consistently with prior West Virginia precedent and federal common law to require the existence of an available alternate forum. Because the two-year statute of limitations in North Carolina would bar the claims and West Virginia's discovery rule might toll it, the court concluded that dismissal was improper without first determining whether an alternate forum existed. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
This case involved two consolidated wrongful death lawsuits filed in West Virginia circuit courts against Mylan, a West Virginia-based pharmaceutical company, alleging that the company's fentanyl patches caused fatalities in Wisconsin. The defendants moved to dismiss both actions on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing Wisconsin was the more appropriate forum, but the circuit courts denied the motions without detailed analysis. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia granted writs of prohibition as moulded, holding that the lower courts erred by failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the eight statutory factors under West Virginia Code § 56-1-1a when denying the motions. The court reasoned that such findings are necessary for meaningful appellate review under an abuse of discretion standard, whether the motion is granted or denied, and remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with the statute.