John Thomas Copenhaver jr

The case involved defendant Wallace's motion to suppress evidence obtained after law enforcement stopped him at a Charleston, West Virginia bus terminal based on a confidential informant's tip that two Black males carrying heroin or pills would arrive on a Greyhound bus from Detroit. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing, reviewed facts including the informant's reliability and officers' observations of the defendant's behavior, and applied Fourth Amendment standards for a Terry stop. It concluded that the stop was justified under an objective analysis of the circumstances, regardless of any subjective motives, and that reasonable force could be used to effect the stop. The court also distinguished the facts from other cases like United States v. Massenburg and found no basis to suppress the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a pharmaceutical products liability action in which plaintiff Rosemary Keffer alleges that she developed breast cancer from taking defendants' hormone replacement therapy drugs Premarin, Prempro, and Provera, asserting claims for negligence, strict liability (design defect and failure to warn), and breach of implied warranties. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the implied warranty claims, arguing the drugs were fit for their ordinary purpose of treating menopausal symptoms, that plaintiff had only a general rather than particular purpose, and that she could not show reliance; they also moved on the design defect claims, asserting lack of specific causation and no valid alternative designs. The court denied the motion on the implied warranty claims, holding that under West Virginia law a plaintiff need not specify which factors of merchantability were breached and that overlap with the failure-to-warn claim does not require dismissal at the summary judgment stage. On the design defect motion, the court deemed conceded plaintiff's proposed alternative designs of lower doses, no therapy, or topical products due to lack of supporting evidence in opposition. The opinion applies the summary judgment standard requiring no genuine issue of material fact and draws all inferences in plaintiff's favor.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

The case involves a West Virginia plaintiff who suffered injuries in a car accident after taking the sleep medication Zolpidem and sued the Michigan-based manufacturer and local pharmacy for failure to warn about side effects and for negligent design and marketing. The defendants removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds, arguing the pharmacy was fraudulently joined to defeat jurisdiction because state law and the learned intermediary doctrine barred claims against it. The court analyzed the fraudulent joinder standard, noting uncertainties in West Virginia precedent on pharmacist liability under W. Va. Code § 30-5-12(a) and the learned intermediary doctrine, including a recent state supreme court decision that could allow such claims. Resolving doubts in the plaintiff's favor, the court concluded there was a possibility of liability against the pharmacy and granted the motion to remand the case to state court.

proceduretorts & liability

This case is a deliberate intention lawsuit by former Kroger employee Jason Skaggs against his employer for foot injuries sustained when a malfunctioning pallet jack rolled over him at a West Virginia grocery store. Skaggs claimed Kroger created a specific unsafe working condition by assigning him to operate the equipment without formal training despite his repeated statements that he lacked experience and had reported prior malfunctions like unintended acceleration and brake failure. Kroger moved for summary judgment, asserting that Skaggs could not satisfy the five statutory elements of a deliberate intention claim under West Virginia Code § 23-4-2(d)(2)(ii) and that the negligence count was barred by workers' compensation immunity under § 23-2-6. The court examined whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the unsafe condition, Kroger's actual knowledge, and the other required elements, while noting OSHA regulations on powered industrial trucks and the distinction between signed verification forms and actual training provided.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involves a West Virginia coal mine employee who sued his employer for unpaid straight time and overtime wages under the West Virginia Wage Payment Collection Act and a federal wage and hour claim, alleging he performed lineman duties but was paid lower laborer rates under the union collective bargaining agreement. The defendant removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, contending the claims required interpretation of the CBA. The court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, holding that both the state and federal claims were governed by Section 301 of the LMRA because they depended on determining the proper job classification and pay rates under the CBA. The plaintiff had failed to exhaust the grievance procedures in the agreement, rendering the claims premature.

labor & employmentfederal power

In Bragg v. United States, representatives of two miners killed in a 2006 fire at the Aracoma Alma Mine sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that MSHA inspectors negligently failed to detect and correct numerous safety violations at the mine, which contributed to the fire and the miners' deaths from smoke and carbon monoxide. The plaintiffs claimed the agency breached a duty of care by not enforcing Mine Act standards during inspections and sought damages for negligence and wrongful death under West Virginia law. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss, holding that West Virginia negligence principles, including any potential good-samaritan liability, do not impose a duty on MSHA inspectors to protect individual miners from harm caused by the mine operator's violations. The decision rested on the absence of an undertaking that increased risk, assumed a duty owed by the operator, or induced reliance sufficient to create liability for the inspectors' alleged omissions.

torts & liabilityfederal powerlabor & employment

In Corbett v. Duerring, a former high school vice principal sued the school superintendent and board of education under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his suspension and termination were in retaliation for his First Amendment-protected speech. The speech consisted of a public hot dog sale protest highlighting alleged unequal disciplinary treatment of students based on parental influence, arbitrary enforcement of school rules, and corrupt practices by administrators. On the defendants' motion to dismiss, the court analyzed the claim under the McVey framework for public employee speech retaliation and found that the protest addressed matters of public concern because it called attention to issues of potential corruption and fairness in the school system that could be understood by the general public.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

The case involved plaintiff Michael Holbrook suing the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that the FAA negligently issued a standard airworthiness certificate to an imported Alouette helicopter by improperly accepting an attestation from the export country rather than following required inspection procedures under 14 C.F.R. § 21.183(c). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), asserting that the discretionary function exception barred the claim. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, reasoning that the FAA's certification decisions involved discretionary judgments by inspectors that were susceptible to policy analysis regarding public safety and aircraft standards, as protected under precedents like United States v. Varig Airlines. The court further noted that any alleged errors in applying those standards did not remove the conduct from the exception's scope.

torts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

This case involved a contract dispute between Nitro Corporation and PAR Industrial Corporation over two options to purchase parcels of real estate, which Nitro exercised in 1989 and renewed in 1996. After delays in closing due to title defects including tax liens and sales to the state, PAR filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1993, and Nitro later sued in adversary proceedings seeking specific performance of the sales contracts. The bankruptcy court granted Nitro summary judgment, and the district court affirmed on appeal. The court reasoned that PAR's failure to provide marketable title free of encumbrances as required by the contracts caused the delay, so the defense of laches did not apply and Nitro was entitled to enforcement of the agreements. The opinion notes that any prejudice to PAR from the passage of time stemmed from its own inability to perform under the contract terms.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court to determine the priority of two deeds of trust encumbering a 1.81-acre tract of land in Logan County, West Virginia, one held by Citifinancial Mortgage Company and the other by U.S. Bank. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to U.S. Bank, finding it holds a valid first-priority lien based on a 2002 deed of trust executed by Homer and Joshua Conley. The district court affirmed on appeal, holding that Homer and Barbara Conley lacked title to the tract when they executed their 1997 deed of trust to Citi because an earlier 1962 conveyance of the encompassing "5-acre" tract had already transferred ownership to others in the chain of title, and a later 1999 conveyance to Homer and Joshua enabled the U.S. Bank lien. The court rejected Citi's challenges to the chain of title and the admissibility of a survey plat used to establish that the 1.81-acre tract was included within the larger parcel described in U.S. Bank's deed.

propertyprocedure

The case involves the West Virginia Attorney General suing CVS Pharmacy and other defendants in state court for allegedly violating state generic-drug pricing laws by failing to pass on cost savings from generic substitutions to purchasers, along with related claims under the Consumer Credit and Protection Act. Defendants removed the action to federal court, citing complete preemption under ERISA and FEHBA as well as jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The court granted the Attorney General's motion to remand, holding that the claims arise under state law without complete preemption by federal statutes, the action is brought in a parens patriae capacity rather than as a class or mass action, and removal jurisdiction must be construed strictly in favor of state court adjudication.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

The case involved homeowners William and Cheryl Croye who refinanced their West Virginia property with two mortgage loans from GreenPoint Mortgage Funding in 2004, after which servicing rights were assigned to Countrywide; the plaintiffs later challenged the loans based on an allegedly inflated appraisal and related lending practices. GreenPoint and Countrywide moved for summary judgment on multiple counts of the third amended complaint, including claims tied to the notes, deeds of trust, and consumer protection issues under West Virginia law. The court granted summary judgment to GreenPoint on Counts I and III, denied it on Count II, granted both defendants summary judgment on Count V, and denied Countrywide's motion as to William Croye's claims in Count IV, while dismissing Counts I and III. The rulings rested on undisputed facts regarding who signed the notes, the original and retrospective appraisals, the payoff of prior loans, and the absence of evidence supporting certain causes of action.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a former vice principal at a West Virginia high school who alleged that the school superintendent and board retaliated against him for refusing to give special treatment to students from influential families and for making statements on matters of public concern, leading to his constructive discharge and eventual termination. The plaintiff brought claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, negligent supervision, and a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the entire action without prejudice. The core reasoning was that the § 1983 claim lacked sufficient factual allegations about the content, timing, and context of the plaintiff's statements to plausibly show protected speech on a matter of public concern, that the speech outweighed the employer's interests, or a causal link to the termination; the court noted the state-law claims were similarly deficient.

free speechlabor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves retired employees of Century Aluminum Co. who sued under the Labor Management Relations Act and ERISA, alleging that the company violated collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) by terminating or modifying their retiree healthcare benefits effective January 1, 2010. The plaintiffs, representing a class of about 437 retirees and dependents, sought a preliminary injunction to restore the prior benefits during litigation. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. The core reasoning was that successive CBAs and incorporated summary plan descriptions contained durational clauses limiting benefits to the agreement's term, preventing the benefits from vesting for life, and similar language in prior agreements reinforced this interpretation over plaintiffs' arguments about vesting or ambiguity.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involves an elderly plaintiff who, after her husband's death, obtained a HUD reverse mortgage on her home and was later induced by lenders to refinance into standard mortgages with increasing monthly payments, ultimately facing foreclosure threats; she sued Home Loan Investment, Citimortgage, and others alleging negligence, unfair or deceptive acts under the WVCCPA, unconscionable conduct, and assignee liability. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the Home Owners' Loan Act and its regulations preempt the state-law claims related to loan origination by a federal savings bank, and that statutes of limitations bar the negligence and consumer-protection counts. The court analyzed the preemption framework under 12 C.F.R. § 560.2, noting that claims concerning loan terms and origination practices fall within the scope of federal preemption while certain general laws may not, and examined whether the discovery rule tolled the applicable one- and two-year limitations periods. It concluded that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to avoid preemption or demonstrate timely filing, resulting in dismissal of the claims against Home Loan and Citimortgage.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a state prisoner who pled guilty to burglary but was classified and treated as a sex offender by prison officials based on details in his presentence investigation report, which described a prior relationship with the victim that began when she was a minor; his refusal to participate in sex offender treatment allegedly led to denial of parole and changes in custody level. He brought federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison defendants and the report's preparer, Rebecca Bostic, along with related state constitutional claims. The court granted the prison defendants' motion to dismiss the federal claims on qualified immunity grounds, dismissed all claims against Bostic for failure to state a claim, qualified immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and lack of a case or controversy, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, dismissing them without prejudice. The decision rested on the pleading standards under Rule 12(b)(6), the two-prong qualified immunity analysis, and limits on federal jurisdiction once the federal claims were resolved.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Ivan Lee, an African-American man, who alleged racial profiling and unlawful search and seizure during a 2006 traffic stop in South Charleston after he and friends observed another police encounter, leading to a vehicle stop for minor traffic violations, a frisk, vehicle search, and discovery of marijuana on his passengers. Lee brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Equal Protection Clause and Fourth Amendment, along with state-law tort claims for assault, battery, false arrest, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the city, its officials, and individual officers. The court granted summary judgment dismissing the equal protection claim for lack of evidence of racial discrimination, the Fourth Amendment and other claims against the municipality and supervisory officials for failure to show a policy or custom, and the emotional distress claim; it denied summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim against the officers in their individual capacities, finding they were not entitled to qualified immunity because the frisk and drug search exceeded the scope of a traffic stop without consent or reasonable suspicion that Lee was armed or that a crime was occurring, and allowed the assault, battery, and false arrest claims to proceed. The reasoning centered on the absence of municipal liability under Monell standards and the officers' actions going beyond the permissible bounds of a traffic stop under Fourth Amendment precedents.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case was a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act brought by environmental groups against the Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) concerning acid mine drainage discharges at several bond forfeiture mine sites where WVDEP had revoked permits and taken over treatment. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and declaratory and injunctive relief, holding that WVDEP must obtain NPDES permits for its ongoing discharges at those sites. The core reasoning was that the CWA requires any discharger of pollutants, including a state agency acting as operator, to have a permit setting effluent limits based on technology and water quality standards, and that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar such prospective relief against state officials.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerns a life insurance dispute in which Harold and Shirley White, parents of the deceased insured Andrew White, sued American General Life Insurance Company after the insurer denied their claim on a policy issued in 2006. American General moved for summary judgment seeking to rescind the policy, asserting that Andrew provided false answers on the application about his driving record (including a DUI charge) and health history (including mental health issues), while the Whites filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaratory judgment that the policy remained valid. The court examined the application questions, the insured's responses, the statements signed by the applicant, and West Virginia insurance law requirements regarding materiality and reliance to determine whether rescission was permissible.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves citizen suits brought by environmental groups under the Clean Water Act and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act against Powellton Coal Company for thousands of alleged violations of discharge permits through unlawful pollutant releases into U.S. waters between 2006 and 2009. The defendant filed a partial motion to dismiss, arguing that prior state enforcement actions and penalty provisions barred the federal citizen claims. The court denied the motion, reasoning that West Virginia's administrative penalty scheme was not comparable to the federal provisions under CWA section 309(g) and thus did not trigger the statutory bar on citizen suits, while also addressing related SMCRA enforcement issues and diligent prosecution requirements.

environmentbusiness & regulatory