Office of the ClerkCase Topics: Civil
Information about WV Supreme Court cases in the area of civil law
?Thursday, October 16, 2008
Recent rules activity-Mass Litigation Panel; changes to Rule 3 (a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure
On October 9, 2008, the Court approved four rule changes related to mass litigation that become effective immediately. Those changes are: Amendments to Trial Court Rule 26: These amendments relate to the Mass Litigation Panel, referral of cases, and conduct of business before the Panel, among other changes. An engrossed version of TCR 26 is also available.New Trial Court Rule 15: This is a new rule that will allow the implementation of electronic filing and service in cases referred to the Mass Litigation Panel under Trial Court Rule 26. Electronic filing and service will not be used to initiate cases, and implementation will be triggered by entry of an order by the Panel (See TCR 15.02).Amendment to Trial Court Rule 16.05 (): This amendment adds mass litigation to the list of exceptions from time standards otherwise applicable in civil litigation.Amendment to Rule of Civil Procedure 5 (e): This amendment enables electronic filing and service for post-complaint filings, following the model used to enable filing by facsimile.
In addition, the Court approved an amendment to Rule of Civil Procedure 3 (a) that becomes effective on November 10, 2008. The amendment adds a second sentence to the existing rule, as follows: "(a) Complaint. [~] The civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court. Is the complaint naming more than one individual plaintiff not related by marriage, the derivative or fiduciary relationship, each plaintiff shall be assigned a separate civil action number and be docketed as a separate civil action and be charged a separate fee by the clerk of the circuit court. " For additional background on this rule, see syllabus points 3 and 4 of CABLE v. HATFIELD, w.Va. 202 638, 505 S.E. 2nd 701 (Davis, C.J.)(July 7, 1998).
[Permanent Link] ?Google It!ABUSE & NEGLECT:: Grandparent visitation
IN RE: SAMANTHA s. AND HOPE s., no. 33713 (Per Curiam) (September 26, 2008). Granting mixed relief from an order of the Circuit Court of Mingo County that terminated parental rights and awarded physical custody to the paternal grandparents. Holding that the circuit court correctly terminated parental rights and awarded custody to the paternal grandparents. Holding that the circuit court erred in granting unsupervised visitation to the maternal grandparents, and remanding for entry of an order terminating the visitation rights of the maternal grandparents.
[Permanent Link] ?Google It!INSURANCE, TORTS, PROCEDURE:: Out-of-state med pay dispute, venue
SAVARESE v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE co., et al., no. 33443 (BENJAMIN, j.)(Starcher, j., including)(McHugh, S.S.J., not participating)(September 26, 2008). Affirming an order of the Circuit Court of Ohio County that dismissed the first-party bad faith action, pursuant to w.Va. Code 56-1-1 (c), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Holding, in point 2, that syllabus: "Pursuant to West Virginia Code 56-1-1 (c) (2003), nonresident plaintiff must establish that all or a substantial part of the acts giving rise to his or her claims occurred in West Virginia in order to establish that venue is appropriate in this state where no claims are asserted against a West Virginia resident. In an action arising from the failure to pay the nonresident plaintiff's medical payment claims arising under a contract of insurance entered into and governed by the law of another state, the nonresident plaintiff's retention of the West Virginia attorney and communications to that attorney in West Virginia that the medical payment claims have been denied are insufficient, standing alone, to satisfy the requirements of West Virginia Code 56-1-1 (c) (2003). " (Note: This case was argued in the January 2008 term of court.)
[Permanent Link] ?Google It!MUNICIPALITIES, CONSTITUTIONAL:: Residency ordinance
EASTHAM v. CITY of HUNTINGTON, no. 33807 (Per Curiam) (Benjamin, j., concurring) (McHugh, S.S.J., not participating) (September 30, 2008). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Cabell County. Holding that a city ordinance requiring city employees to be residents of the city did not conflict with constitutional and statutory protections provided to civil service employees, and construing the ordinance to require the pre-disciplinary hearing that comports with constitutional and statutory requirements.
[Permanent Link] ?Google It!PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE:: License to practice law annulled
LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD v. MARK a. BLEVINS, no. 33281, (Per Curiam) (Starcher, j., concurring) (September 26, 2008). Imposing harsher discipline than recommended by the Hearing Panel Subcommittee, after concluding that "the magnitude of respondent fees Blevins ' actions, which included, at a minimum, recklessly encouraging the convicted felon to intimidate, by violence or the threat of violence, certain former clients who owed the respondent fees money, warrants the annulment of the respondent fees's license to practice in this State." Imposing additional conditions to be satisfied prior to reinstatement.
[Permanent Link] ?Google It!TAXATION:: Support test includes exempt purpose income
DAVIS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. WEST VIRGINIA STATE TAX COMM ' R, no. 33862 (DAVIS, j.)(McHugh, S.S.J., disqualified)(Hutchison, j., by temporary assignment)(October 14, 2008). Affirming an order of the Circuit Court of Randolph County that re-affirmed an administrative denial of the claim for refund of West Virginia consumer sales tax and use tax paid for the year 2002. Holding that the circuit court properly included the hospital's receipts from patient revenues, also known as "exempt purpose income", in the definition of "support" as contained in West Virginia Code 11-15-9 (a) (6) (F) (i) (II), thereby disqualifying the hospital from receiving an exemption from sales and use tax.
[Permanent Link] ?Google It!TORTS, PROCEDURE:: Claims precluded
BEAHM, et al. v. 7-ELEVEN, Inc. and MELISSA SPINKS, no. 33833 (Per Curiam) (Starcher, j., including) (McHugh, S.S.J., not participating) (September 26, 2008). Affirming an order of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County that granted summary judgment to defendants in an action related to gasoline release from underground storage tanks. Applying the doctrine of virtual representation to conclude that privity exists between the appellants and plaintiffs in a prior action adjudicated on the merits. The prior action was sufficiently similar, and therefore the circuit court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of claim preclusion.
[Permanent Link] ?Google It!The items on this page are archived by the day they are posted. Use the calendar to browse posts by day.
OPINION SEARCH
Full Text Opinions
Search1991-PresentCOURT RULES
Links to Rules
Links to Forms CONFERENCE and ARGUMENT
Calendar
Live Webcast LINKS TO LAST 50 POSTS in this CATEGORY
View this page as XML [RSS 0.92]:
.
没有评论:
发表评论