You are here

Opinions

The Southern District of West Virginia offers a database of opinions starting in the year 2001, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search to the right or sort using the drop-downs below.

Christina Miller v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, et al. 04/27/2004
2:03-cv-02325

Memorandum Order

Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel More Complete Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (docket sheet document # 18), filed March 24, 2004. Defendant Liberty Mutual has responded in opposition (# 19).  It appears that two requests for production of documents remain at issue: numbers 6 and 12.  Defendant Liberty Mutual has agreed to produce the insurance information requested in request number 1; thus there is no controversy as to that request.  The parties conferred in an effort to resolve their dispute, with some success.

Author:
Mary E. Stanley
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. William Bulen and Robert B. Flowers 04/26/2004
3:03-cv-02281

Order

Pending before the court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Preliminary Injunction [Docket 37]. I previously granted the plaintiffs' motion in part and issued a temporary restraining order on April6, 2004 [Docket 39]. A hearing to consider further injunctive relief was held on April12, 2004. T renewed the temporary restraining order on April 15, 2004 [Docket 50]. On April19, 2004, the parties submitted supplemental briefs addressing issues raised at the April12 hearing [Docket 54, 57, 60]. The hearing on the motion resumed on April22, 2004.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Karen Johnson v. New River Scenic Whitewater Tours, Inc., and Clayton Scott 04/13/2004
5:01-cv-00703

Order

Pending are Third Party Defendants Fort Johnson Baptist Church and John Peters’ motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff’s motion in limine regarding a purported release of liability and comparative negligence.  For the reasons set forth herein, both motions are GRANTED.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Dorothy J. Kerr v. United Teachers Association Insurance Company 04/12/2004
5:03-cv-02507

Order

Two motions are pending: Plaintiff’s motion to remand (doc. no. 8), and Defendant’s motion to dismiss (doc. no. 2).  Defendant’s motion is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.  This case is therefore REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Fayette County, West Virginia.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. The Board of Public Works of the State of West Virginia, et al. 04/08/2004
2:01-cv-00299

Opinion

This matter came for trial before the court sitting without a jury on October 6, 2003. Following the presentation of evidence by the parties, the court took this matter under advisement and ordered the parties to submit post-trial briefs and an agreed statement of fact.  The parties have complied and this matter is now ripe for adjudication.  For the reasons stated below, the court FINDS that the sales ratio for other commercial and industrial property in West Virginia for the tax year 2000 is 56.1% and ORDERS the Board of Public Works to assess taxes against CSX Transportation, Inc. accordingly.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. James W. Coe, et al. 04/07/2004
1:03-cv-00388

Memorandum Opinion in Support of Order Directing Arbitration of State Court Claims

Before the court is Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.’s (“Merrill Lynch”) motion for an order directing arbitration, sought in accordance with § 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act.  See 9 U.S.C. § 4.  The defendants in this matter, James Coe, John Wade, Robert and Joann Harmon, and Ora Robertson, Jr. (“state court plaintiffs”) are plaintiffs in various proceedings pending in the Circuit Court of McDowell County, West Virginia (“state court actions”).  Pursuant to § 4 the court conducted a hearing on January 6, 2004, and determined that the making of an agreement to arbitrate was “in issue.”  The court accordingly conducted a bench trial on February 27, 2004, in Charleston, West Virginia.  At this trial, the parties presented evidence concerning the alleged arbitration agreements and any defenses applicable to them.  The court has concluded that it must order the state court plaintiffs to arbitrate the claims being litigated in the state court actions and has accordingly issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of its ruling.  This memorandum opinion details the court’s legal and factual findings and discusses the critical issue in this case, whether West Virginia public policy prohibits enforcement of the arbitration agreements at issue here.1

Author:
David A. Faber
Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Energy Development Corporation, et al. 04/07/2004
1:03-cv-00307

Dismissal Order

For the reasons herein detailed, the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this dispute. Accordingly, the court is obliged to order this matter dismissed sua sponte.

Author:
David A. Faber
Gary L. Barge, et al. v. Western Southern Life Insurance Company, et al. 03/30/2004
3:03-cv-00818

Memorandum Order

Pending before the court is plaintiffs' motion to remand, filed August 28, 2003, seeking to remand the 15 "Barge cases" to the Circuit Court of Mason County. The "Barge cases" were removed by defendants by their notice of removal filed July 29,2003.

Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
Appalachian Power Company, et al. v. William J. Sadler, et al. 03/29/2004
1:00-cv-01159

Memorandum Order

This is an action for a declaratory judgment asking the court to hold unconstitutional that provision of the election laws of West Virginia which prohibits utilities and railroads from forming political action committees or "PACS."  The plaintiffs are Appalachian Power Company, Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company and West Virginia-American Water Company, public utilities with extensive operations in West Virginia, and Norfolk Southern Railway Company and CSX Corporation, major interstate rail carriers with significant presences in West Virginia.  The defendants are the Secretary of State of West Virginia who, as the state’s chief election official is charged with the administration and enforcement of the election laws,1 and William J. Sadler, Prosecuting Attorney of Mercer County, West Virginia.  Sadler is sued as representative of a class consisting of the fifty-five prosecuting attorneys in West Virginia; the prosecuting attorneys are responsible for enforcing the criminal penalty provisions of the election laws.  By Order entered on September 27, 2001, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and found that Sadler would fairly and accurately protect the interests of the class.

Author:
David A. Faber
Emmett Cunningham v. Bombay Productions, Inc., et al. 03/23/2004
2:03-cv-00677

Memorandum Opinion and Order

CurrentIy pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Defendants have not filed a response to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Also currently pending before the Court is the Motion of Defendant 99¢ Only Stores to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Brief in Support thereof. In response, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Response to Defendant 99¢ Only Stores' Motion to Dismiss. In reply thereto, Defendant 99¢ Only Stores filed Defendant 99¢ Only Stores' Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Having reviewed the aforementioned Motions, all memoranda in support thereof and in opposition thereto, as well as all relevant case and statutory law, the Court is now prepared to issue its decision.

Author:
Elizabeth V. Hallanan

Pages