DOCSLIB.ORG

Justice Ketchum: a Practical Approach to Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Justice Ketchum: a Practical Approach to Law Justice Ketchum: A Practical Approach To Law by David A. Stackpole1 Farrell, White & Legg PLLC 1 David A. Stackpole is an associate at Farrell, White & Legg PLLC. Mr. Stackpole‟s interest in appellate work, including the effect that each justice has upon the Court, began while he was a law student at the West Virginia University College of Law. During his time in law school, Mr. Stackpole argued before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia as part of a Moot Court Competition where he was awarded the Baker Cup. Mr. Stackpole‟s passion for appellate work has continued to grow since joining Farrell, White & Legg PLLC, where he is part of the Appellate Advocacy team. Mr. Stackpole‟s appellate work includes drafting amicus curiae briefs. Farrell, White & Legg PLLC has a long history of appellate work before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia from its office in Huntington, West Virginia. © David A. Stackpole http://www.farrell3.com {F0317960.1 } 1 INTRODUCTION It is important to know your audience. Whether your audience is a particular Circuit Judge, a jury, or an appellate court, knowing your audience can make the difference in your ability to be persuasive. This article is an attempt to help acquaint the reader with the newest member of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. On November 4, 2008, Justice Menis Ketchum was elected to a twelve year term on the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.2 He was born in 1943.3 He attended Ohio University and West Virginia University College of Law.4 From 1967 until his election in 2008 to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Justice Ketchum practiced law in Huntington, West Virginia at the firm of Greene Ketchum.5 As of April 15, 2011, Justice Menis Ketchum has authored fifty-five (55) opinions as a justice on the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. In thirty-one (31) of the opinions, Justice Ketchum wrote the majority opinion; in seventeen (17) of the opinions, Justice Ketchum wrote a dissenting opinion; and in nine (9) of the opinions, Justice Ketchum wrote a concurring opinion.6 Although all of a justice‟s opinions are important in understanding his or her judicial philosophy, the scope of this article is limited to Justice Ketchum‟s dissents, not including his 2 Justice Workman was also elected to a twelve year term at the same time. Because Justice Workman has been on the Court previously, her judicial approach is well known. This article focuses on Justice Ketchum as the newest member of the Court. 3 Justice Ketchum‟s bio at http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/ketchum.htm (last accessed Dec. 22, 2010). 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 At first blush, it may appear that I have made a mathematical error (31 majority opinions + 17 dissenting opinions + 9 concurrences should equal 57 total opinions). However, in two (2) opinions, Justice Ketchum concurred in-part and dissented in-part and so, I have included the two (2) opinions in both categories (concurrences and dissents). This footnote is dedicated to my seventh grade math teacher who always made me “show my work.” {F0317960.1 } 2 two partial dissents/partial concurrences. While a justice‟s opinions when writing for the majority may provide insight as to that justice‟s judicial philosophy, it is a justice‟s dissents that set him or her apart from the majority and helps to distinguish his or her judicial philosophy. This article will walk through each of Justice Ketchum‟s dissents in an attempt to determine what sets Justice Ketchum apart from the majority and will then draw conclusions from the same. FIFTEEN DISSENTS IN LESS THAN FIVE TERMS To date, Justice Ketchum has authored fifteen (15) dissents, not including his two (2) partial dissents/partial concurrences (Spring Term 2009 – 1 dissent; Fall Term 2009 – 1 dissent; Spring Term 2010 – 7 dissents; Fall Term 2010 – 4 dissents; Spring Term 2011 – 2 dissents as of April 15, 2011). A. Spring Term 2009 Justice Ketchum authored one (1) dissent during the spring term of 2009. The dissent was in a lawyer disciplinary matter. In Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Brown,7 the majority annulled an attorney‟s law license because of his misappropriation of client funds in the amount of $7,980.00.8 The attorney argued unsuccessfully that his cocaine addiction was a mitigating factor, similar to alcohol addiction.9 Justice Ketchum would have applied the Lawyer Disciplinary Board‟s recommendation as the attorney “has since sought treatment and has straightened up his life.”10 7 223 W. Va. 554, 678 S.E.2d 60 (2009). 8 Brown, 223 W. Va. at 561, 678 S.E.2d at 67. 9 Brown, 223 W. Va. at 559-60, 678 S.E.2d at 65-6. 10 Brown, 223 W. Va. at 562, 678 S.E.2d at 68. {F0317960.1 } 3 B. Fall Term 2009 Justice Ketchum authored one (1) dissent during the fall term of 2009. It was in a civil case. In L.H. Jones Equip. Co. v. Swenson Spreader LLC,11 the majority interpreted the West Virginia Farm Equipment Dealer Contract Act as extending “to „dealers‟ and „suppliers‟ of „farm, construction, industrial or outdoor power equipment or any combination.‟”12 Justice Ketchum‟s dissent focused on the fact that Swenson Spreader does not deal in farm equipment, but rather makes salt spreaders for highway use.13 Justice Ketchum reasoned that because the title of the Act‟s title only mentions farm equipment, a company that makes salt spreaders for use on the highways is not put on notice that the statute applies to salt spreaders: [I]t is difficult to conceptualize why a person searching through our statutory indexes to determine the law relating to their highway salt spreading business would understand that an Act titled “Farm Equipment Dealer Contract Act” could apply to highway salt spreaders. I submit that Swenson‟s lawyers will now have to read this State‟s entire chapter entitled and indexed as “school law” to be sure that there is no paragraph within relating to highway salt spreaders.14 C. Spring Term 2010 Justice Ketchum authored seven (7) dissents during the spring term of 2010. Three (3) dissents were in criminal cases, one (1) was a petition for a writ of prohibition, and three (3) were in civil cases. In State ex rel. Marshall County Comm'n v. Carter,15 the majority denied a writ of prohibition in an employment discrimination matter involving a blind man who applied for an 11 224 W. Va. 570, 687 S.E.2d 353 (2009). 12 L.H. Jones Equip. Co., 224 W. Va. at 576, 687 S.E.2d at 359. 13 Id. 14 L.H. Jones Equip. Co., 224 W. Va. at 576-77, 687 S.E.2d at 359-60. {F0317960.1 } 4 advertised telecommunications operator position.16 The man alleged discrimination and sought audio recordings of the executive session of the commission in discovery.17 The commission claimed privilege based on [1] attorney/client privilege, [2] work product doctrine, and [3] executive session privilege.18 The ALJ ordered the audio recording to be produced for in camera inspection.19 The commission sought a writ of prohibition for the in camera inspection.20 The majority found that an in camera inspection was proper, even for an ALJ whose function involves findings of fact, for claims of attorney/client privilege and work product doctrine.21 The majority also refused to recognize an executive session privilege.22 Justice Ketchum dissented on the basis that he would have found that an executive session privilege existed.23 He reasoned “that governmental bodies cannot operate effectively if their executive session (closed session) discussions are subject to lawsuits”; that if the legislature intended to the executive session to be discoverable, then minutes would be required; that “no vote or action can be taken in executive session”; and that a person should be equitably estopped where he or she failed to request an open meeting.24 15 225 W. Va. 68, 689 S.E.2d 796 (2010). 16 Carter, 225 W. Va. at 70, 689 S.E.2d at 798. 17 Id. 18 Carter, 225 W. Va. at 72-6, 689 S.E.2d at 800-04. 19 Carter, 225 W. Va. at 71, 689 S.E.2d at 799. 20 Id. 21 Carter, 225 W. Va. at 72-4, 689 S.E.2d at 800-02. 22 Carter, 225 W. Va. at 76, 689 S.E.2d at 804. 23 Carter, 225 W. Va. at 77-8, 689 S.E.2d at 805-06. 24 Id. {F0317960.1 } 5 In State v. Rash,25 the majority found that joinder of claims was proper despite the extended time frame (eleven years) between the alleged sexual misconduct involving the first victim and the alleged sexual misconduct involving the second victim.26 The defendant unsuccessfully argued that severance was proper because of the eleven year time period between the alleged acts and because joinder would was unfairly prejudicial.27 Justice Ketchum dissented based on the amount of time between the alleged acts.28 His concern is that a jury may view the evidence as demonstrating that the defendant is a “bad man” and convict him on that basis: “[p]rosecutors should be required to prosecute a defendant for crimes committed but not allowed to throw in „kitchen sink‟ charges which are not temporally related in order to show bad character.”29 In Roth v. Defelicecare, Inc.,30 the Complaint set forth allegations of an employee who arrived at work to find her boss and another employee in a state of undress and “in a compromised position.”31 The Complaint further alleged that she was instructed to tell no one about what she saw and that she complied with that request, but was fired nonetheless for the style of her clothing and her hair color.32 The majority overturned the lower court‟s dismissal for failure to state a claim and held that the plaintiff would need to “develop sufficient facts in order ultimately prevail” on her claims of hostile work place, wrongful termination, employment 25 ___ W.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Giving Adequate Attention to Failings of Judicial Impartiality
    Impeach Brent Benjamin Now!? Giving Adequate Attention to Failings of Judicial Impartiality JEFFREY W. STEMPEL* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION:M EN WITH NO REGRETS AND INADEQUATE CONCERN................... 2 II. CAPERTON V. MASSEY: JUDICIAL ERROR; WASTED RESOURCES; NEW CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—AND LIGHT TREATMENT OF THE PERPETRATOR ............................................................................................... 10 A. The Underlying Action............................................................................... 10 B. The 2004 West Virginia Supreme Court Elections..................................... 12 C. Review and Recusal ................................................................................... 13 D. The Supreme Court Intervenes .................................................................. 16 E. Caperton’s Test for Determining When Recusal Is Required by the Due Process Clause ........................................................................ 17 F. Comparing the “Reasonable Question as to Impartiality” Standard for Nonconstitutional Recusal Under Federal and State Law to the “Serious Risk of Bias” Standard for Constitutional Due Process Under Caperton....................................... 19 G. The Dissenters’ Defense of Justice Benjamin—And Defective Judging ...................................................................................... 25 H. Enablers: Reluctance To Criticize Justice Benjamin................................. 28 * © 2010 Jeffrey W. Stempel. Doris S. & Theodore B. Lee Professor
    [Show full text]
  • WEST VIRGINIA HOUSE of DELEGATES, Petitioner, V
    No. 18-____ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— WEST VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES, Petitioner, v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ex rel. MARGARET L. WORKMAN, MITCH CARMICHAEL, President of the West Virginia Senate; DONNA J. BOLEY, President Pro Tempore of the West Virginia Senate; RYAN FERNS, Majority Leader of the West Virginia Senate; LEE CASSIS, Clerk of the West Virginia Senate; and the WEST VIRGINIA SENATE, Respondents. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia ———— PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— MARK A. CARTER Counsel of Record DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 707 Virginia Street, East Chase Tower, Suite 1300 Charleston, WV 25301 (304) 357-0900 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner January 8, 2019 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia’s decision in this case violates the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution. 2. Whether the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia properly denied the Motion to Intervene of the Petitioner, the West Virginia House of Delegates. (i) ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RULE 29.6 STATEMENT Respondents are Margaret L. Workman; Mitch Carmichael, President of the West Virginia Senate; Donna J. Boley, President Pro Tempore of the West Virginia Senate; Ryan Ferns, Majority Leader of the West Virginia Senate; Lee Cassis, Clerk of the West Virginia Senate; and the West Virginia Senate. Petitioner is the West Virginia House of Delegates as an indispensable and materially affected party who was wrongfully denied intervenor status.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
    No. ________ In the Supreme Court of the United States MITCH CARMICHAEL, President of the West Virginia Senate, DONNA J. BOLEY, President Pro Tempore of the West Virginia Senate, TOM TAKUBO, West Virginia Senate Majority Leader, LEE CASSIS, Clerk of the West Virginia Senate, and the WEST VIRGINIA SENATE, Petitioners, v. West Virginia ex. rel. MARGARET L. WORKMAN, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI PATRICK MORRISEY LINDSAY S. SEE Attorney General Solicitor General OFFICE OF THE Counsel of Record WEST VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL ZACHARY A. VIGLIANCO State Capitol Complex Assistant Attorney Building 1, Room E-26 General Charleston, WV 25305 [email protected] (304) 558-2021 Counsel for Petitioners QUESTIONS PRESENTED In a decision that brought pending state impeachment proceedings to a halt, a panel of acting justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia inserted itself into both the substance and procedure of a process that the West Virginia Constitution entrusts exclusively to the Legislative Branch. In its opinion, the court refused to grant relief under the “Guarantee Clause” of Article IV, § 4 of the United States Constitution, which promises that “[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” because it deemed Guarantee Clause challenges to be nonjusticiable political questions. The questions presented are: 1) Whether Guarantee Clause claims are judicially cognizable? 2) Whether a state judiciary’s intrusion into the impeachment process represents so grave a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers as to undermine the essential components of a republican form of government? ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Attorney Discipline Decisions
    4/9/2019 Omaha Bar Association and Creighton University School of Law 13th Annual Seminar on Ethics and Professionalism April 5, 2019 J. Scott Paul McGrath North Mullin & Kratz PC LLO Omaha, Nebraska Attorney Discipline Decisions 1 1 4/9/2019 State ex. rel. Counsel for Discipline v. Trembly, 300 Neb 195 (2018) • The only question for the Supreme Court was the appropriate sanction. • Felony conviction for false individual tax return. 2 Facts • The failure to report on tax return over $1 million from both law related and non- law related activity. 3 2 4/9/2019 • Per Curiam Opinion • No bright-line rule that a felony conviction creates a presumption in favor of disbarment, as it has for acts of misappropriating trust account funds. • Lawyer argued underlying conduct – not felony conviction, should be focal point. 4 • “There should be no question that a knowing failure to file tax returns and to pay taxes is a serious violation of the ethical obligations of an attorney. • “Failure to file a tax return is a crime of moral turpitude which is prohibited by Neb. S. Ct. Rule Section 3-508.4.” 5 3 4/9/2019 Mitigating Factors • Letters were submitted to the Referee as evidence of lawyer’s good character and honesty. • However, these letters were not mentioned in the Referee’s report. 6 Failure to note exception: • Lawyer did not take exception to the findings of fact in the Referee’s report • Because there was no exceptions made to the Referee’s findings of fact, the Supreme Court may consider the Referee’s findings final and conclusive.
    [Show full text]
  • Post Audit Division
    JOINT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR POST AUDIT DIVISION LEGISLATIVE AUDIT REPORT SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA REPORT SUMMARY 1. Some Justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Used State Vehicles and Rental Cars Paid for by the State for Personal Use, While Ignoring Federal Law for Taxable Fringe Benefits. 2. Supreme Court Justice Ketchum has Repaid the State $1,663.81 for Incorrect Travel Reimbursements. 3. Personal Use of State Vehicles and an Antique Desk May Violate the Ethics Act’s Provision Prohibiting the Use of Public Office for Private Gain. 4. The Supreme Court Does Not Comply With §17A-3- 23(a) Which Requires a License Plate on the Front of State Vehicles. Legislative Auditor: Aaron Allred Post Audit Director: Denny Rhodes GENERALLY ACCEPTED GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS STATEMENT We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. POST AUDIT DIVISION Director, Denny Rhodes JOINT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR POST AUDIT DIVISION POST AUDITS SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS SENATE MEMBERS HOUSE MEMBERS President, Mitch Carmichael Tim Armstead, Speaker Ed Gaunch Timothy Miley Roman Prezioso Eric Nelson Jr. APRIL 16, 2018 LEGISLATIVE AUDIT REPORT SUPREME COURT of INTRODUCTION: PAGE 1 ISSUE 1: PAGE 2 Some Justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals APPEALS of WEST VIRGINIA of West Virginia Used State Vehicles and Rental Cars Paid for by the State for Personal Use, While Ignoring Federal Law for Taxable Fringe LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR’S STAFF CONTRIBUTORS Benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Court Brochure, Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
    THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA Justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin Justice Robin Jean Davis Justice Margaret L. Workman Justice Menis E. Ketchum Justice Allen H. Loughry II Clerk of Court Rory L. Perry II Administrative Director Steven D. Canterbury Credits Edited by Jennifer Bundy, Public Information Officer, and April Harless, Public Information Specialist, Supreme Court of Appeals Layout and design by Morgantown Printing and Binding, Morgantown, West Virginia Cover portrait and portraits of Chief Justice Brent Benjamin on page 9, Justice Margaret Workman on page 11, and Justice Allen Loughry on page 13 by Rick Lee of Charleston, West Virginia Inside cover photo and photos on pages 16, 17, and 23 by Thorney Lieberman of Charleston, West Virginia Photo on page 15 of Wheeling Capitol by Scott McCloskey, Wheeling, West Virginia Portrait of Justice Robin Jean Davis on page 10 and portrait of Justice Menis Ketchum on page 12 by Steve Payne, Steve Payne Photography, Charleston, West Virginia Back cover photo by Lawrence Pierce, The Charleston Gazette Bibliography West Virginia Legislature, The West Virginia Capitol: A commemorative History, 3rd ed., Charleston, West Virginia, 1995 Pictured at left: The skylight in the Supreme Court Chamber, designed by Capitol architect Cass Gilbert Printed February 2013 1 West Virginia Judicial System 5 Justices OFFICE SUPREME COURT OF THE CLERK OFFICE OF OF APPEALS COUNSEL BOARD OF Court Of Last Resort LAW EXAMINERS Jurisdiction: Original jurisdiction in proceedings of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition and Glossary certiorari.
    [Show full text]
  • West Virginia Supreme Court Amicus
    Amicus A newsletter for employees of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Volume 26 Issue 1 February-March 2012 Chief Justice Ketchum In this edition: presents budget to From the Chief Legislature Probation Division Chief Justice Menis E. Drug Courts Ketchum presented the WVU visit Supreme Court’s 2012-2013 budget to the House and Announcements Senate Finance Committees Guidelines for indigent civil cases January 24-25. Chief Justice Chief Justice Menis E. Ketchum presents the Supreme Court budget to Ketchum promised to be Judge Bloom tough on members of the West Virginia Senate on January 25, 2012. Photo by Martin truancy Valent, Legislative Photographer frugal with the state’s New juvenile referee in money and, pursuant to that promise, on February 27 Supreme Court Kanawha County Administrator Steve Canterbury notified the committee chairmen that the Robes to Schools Court was lowering its appropriation request by $2.2 million. The Court Judge Kaufman visits reduced administrative costs by $539,761 and realized that because an Hampden-Sydney unfunded liability no longer exists in the Judicial Pension System it could Transitions return $1.741 million to the general revenue fund. Legislative bills list Chief Justice Ketchum also told the Finance Committees that West Law Library does taxes Virginia could save about $3 million a year by changing how it handles Black History Month CLE involuntary hospitalizations. In 2010, the most recent year for which figures were available, 7,193 petitions for involuntary commitment were filed Business Court comment period statewide. In West Virginia, attorneys acting as mental hygiene Justices on the road commissioners decide whether people should be involuntarily hospitalized, Renovations but in other states mental health professionals make those decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to the League of Women Voters Morgantown
    Welcome to the Contacting Public Officials League of Women Voters We encourage you to stay as informed as possible and to take an Morgantown - Monongalia County active role in participating in the actions of your government. A great Guide to Government Officials way to make your voice heard is to call or write your representatives when you feel it is necessary. When doing so, however, it is useful to March 2017 keep in mind the following tips: In this guide you will find the contact information for federal, Be Brief – One issue per letter is best state, and local representatives for residents of Monongalia Be Courteous – Abusive language or tone will not help your case County. We have also included tips for effective communication Be Specific – Name the bill (e.g. “HB 1212”) or the particular issue with public officials and information about both the national and about which you are concerned the local League of Women Voters. Be Original – Officials are usually leery of 1,000 letters that are identical Be on Target – Write to the right person Be Realistic – Your public officials live in a world of compromise Be Available – Be sure to include your full name and address so that Table of Contents your official can respond to your letter Page Be Early – Better to write before legislation is drafted or budgets are Contacting Public Officials 1 proposed than when it is too late Federal Officials Senate 2 House of Representatives 2 West Virginia Officials State Officials 3 Supreme Court of Appeals 3 State Legislators for Monongalia County To
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Meeting Scheduled for August 21–23, 2008 at the Homestead
    The West Virginia 1 8 86 A The Communique The Official Newsletter of The West Virginia Bar Association Volume XIV No. 2 June 2008 The Communique President’s CornerThe Official Newsletter of The West Virginia Bar Association The West Virginia Bar Association is very excited about our upcoming 122nd Annual Meeting scheduled for August 21–23, 2008 at The Homestead. As you can see in the enclosed 122nd Annual Meeting Brochure, several wonderful speakers will give presentations on an array of interesting topics. Norman L. Greene, a nationally-known proponent of judicial reform, is one of the speakers. To coincide with Mr. Greene’s presentation, and because The WVBA recognized the need to increase public confidence Ronda L. Harvey in our Judiciary, The West Virginia Bar Association has also organized a President Judicial Selection and Reform Committee. The Committee will consist of Ronda L. Harvey two to three representatives from each statewide voluntary bar association – the Defense Trial Counsel President of West Virginia, the West Virginia Association for Justice, the Mountain State Bar Association, and of Elisabeth H. Rose President-Elect course, The West Virginia Bar Association. Other representatives from West Virginia University and the community will also be involved in the Committee. Stephen R. Crislip Logan M. Hassig The Committee has been tasked with reaching a consensus on proposed changes to judicial selection for Supreme Court Justices. The first Committee meeting will take place in June. The Committee’s Andrew H. Miller goal is to reach a consensus, develop a recommendation and present it at The West Virginia Bar Patrick D.
    [Show full text]
  • Still Laying Claim: an Update to Developments in Will Contest Litigation in West Virginia
    (DO NOT DELETE) 2/1/2018 3:52 PM STILL LAYING CLAIM: AN UPDATE TO DEVELOPMENTS IN WILL CONTEST LITIGATION IN WEST VIRGINIA Christopher J. Winton∗ Mark W. Kelley∗∗ I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 18 II. ATTACKING THE WILL ................................................................... 18 A. The West Virginia Impeachment Statute ................................. 18 1. Statute of Limitations ........................................................ 19 i. Length of the Period ................................................... 19 ii. When the Period Starts ............................................... 20 iii. An Extended Period for Common Law Torts .............. 22 iv. An Extended Period for Probate Settlement Objections ................................................................... 23 2. Federal Venue ................................................................... 25 3. Standing ............................................................................ 26 i. Children Born out of Wedlock .................................... 27 ii. Same-Sex Spouses ....................................................... 28 4. Parties Defendant .............................................................. 30 B. Grounds of Attack ................................................................... 31 1. Lack of Testamentary Formalities .................................... 31 i. Signing by Witnesses: Ware v. Howell (2005) ........... 31 ii. Signing by the Testator: Brown v. Fluharty
    [Show full text]
  • West Virginia's Move Into The
    A MOUNTAIN STATE TRANSFORMATION: WEST VIRGINIA’S MOVE INTO THE MAINSTREAM Cary Silverman & Richard R. Heath, Jr.** I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 28 II. THE 2015-2018 CIVIL JUSTICE REFORMS ...................................... 29 A. Moving West Virginia’s Tort Liability Laws Into the Mainstream ............................................................................. 30 1. Allocating Fault in Proportion to Responsibility .............. 30 2. Adopting the Learned Intermediary Doctrine ................... 33 3. Limiting the Liability of Innocent Product Sellers ........... 34 4. Eliminating Liability for “Open and Obvious” Hazards and Preserving the No Duty to Trespassers Rule .............. 35 5. Adopting the Wrongful Conduct Rule .............................. 37 B. Addressing Litigation Abuse ................................................... 39 1. Stopping Litigation Tourism Through Venue Reform ...... 39 2. Providing Medical Criteria for Asbestos Claims and Transparency Between the Tort and Trust Systems .......... 44 3. Addressing Excessive Litigation Under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act .................. 47 4. Preserving the Workers’ Compensation Act ..................... 48 C. More Reasonably Determining Damages ............................... 50 1. Advancing Proportionality in Punishment ........................ 50 2. Curbing “Phantom Damages” ........................................... 53 3. Restoring a Duty to Mitigate Damages in Employment
    [Show full text]
  • Why West Virginia Needs an Intermediate Appellate Court
    BETTER FOR BUSINESS, BETTER FOR JUSTICE: WHY WEST VIRGINIA NEEDS AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 429 II . BACKGROUND —CHANGES IN THE COURTS .......................................... 432 A. Appellate Reform ........................................................................... 432 1. West Virginia ’s State Court System ........................................ 432 2. Mandatory Appellate Review .................................................. 434 3. Memorandum Decisions .......................................................... 435 4. Stricter Pleading Requirements ................................................ 438 B. Business Court Division ................................................................. 439 C. Possibility of an Intermediate Appellate Court ............................. 440 D. Recent Business-Related Case Law ............................................... 443 III . ANALYSIS —BETTER , AND EVEN BETTER ............................................. 446 A. Pro-Business Trend in Case Law ................................................... 446 B. Business Court Division ................................................................. 452 C. Appellate Reform ........................................................................... 453 1. Stricter Requirements —Helpful Start ...................................... 454 2. Mandatory Appellate Review —Tremendous Improvement .... 454 3. Memorandum Decisions —Inadequate
    [Show full text]