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.

William Earl Cline v. David Ballard, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex 12/07/2007
2:01-cv-00295

Memorandum Opinion and Order

On October 4, 2007, Petitioner filed an “Answer to Respondent’s Memorandum of Law and Motion for Summary Judgment,” with accompanying exhibits.  These documents have not been docketed because both Petitioner’s brief and the exhibits in support thereof contain information which should be redacted in accordance with the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the EGovernment Act of 2002.  In particular, the court is concerned that the names of the minor victims involved in Petitioner’s prosecution for sexual assault and sexual abuse (even though they are now no longer minors) should be redacted because these files are now accessible to the general public in an electronic format on the court’s electronic docketing system.  After reviewing other documents filed in this matter, the undersigned has determined that some of the exhibits filed in support of Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment also contain the minor victims’ full names.

Author:
Mary E. Stanley
Frontier-Kemper Constructors, Inc. v. Elk Run Coal Company, Inc. 11/21/2007
2:06-cv-00716

Memorandum Opinion

Pending before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Strike Objections and Compel Discovery (docket # 38), filed on October 22, 2007.  By Order entered October 24, 2007 (# 40), the court accelerated the briefing on the Motion.  Plaintiff has responded (# 41), and Defendant has replied (# 42).  A hearing was conducted on November 2, 2007, and on that same date, the court entered an Order (# 44), granting Defendant’s Motion, directing that Plaintiff serve complete discovery responses in compliance with the applicable Rules and indicating that the instant Memorandum Opinion would be entered at a later date.

Author:
Mary E. Stanley
Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company v. Robert G. Berry, et al. 11/21/2007
2:06-cv-00945

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by defendant Rachel E. Auxier (docket #50) and defendants David W. Gordon and Kristopher Gordon (docket # 55). The parties consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge (docket # 18), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), and the motions are now ripe for decision.  For the reasons set forth below, the first motion is GRANTED and the latter is DENIED.

Author:
Mary E. Stanley
J.D. v. Kanawha County Board of Education 10/22/2007
2:06-cv-00485

Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s letter form Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal [Docket 25].  For the following reasons the motion is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Felman Productions Inc., et al. v. Boris Bannai, et al. 10/22/2007
3:06-cv-00644

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before this Court is Defendant David Biniashvili’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) [Docket No. 66] and Defendant Moskotree Investment Limited’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) [Docket No. 68].  For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motions.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al. 10/11/2007
3:05-cv-00784

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before this Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion For a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction Against the Callisto Surface Mine (Doc.  358).  A hearing on this motion was held by the Court on September 26, 2007.  Additionally, parties have submitted memoranda explaining their positions.  Having considered all of this, and for the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS the plaintiffs’ motion.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
The O.N. Equity Sales Company v. Lonnie L. Gibson 10/01/2007
3:07-cv-00362

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before this Court are numerous motions by the parties, revolving around the question of arbitrability, including, 1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 16), 2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Preliminary Injunction Hearing with Trial on the Merits (Doc. 18), 3) Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Authorizing the Parties to Engage in Immediate Discovery on the Issue of Arbitrability (Doc. 20),  4) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 24), and finally 5) Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. 29).  For the reasons explained more fully below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, and DENIES the parties’ other motions as moot.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
WV Association of Club Owners and Fraternal Services, Inc. v. John C. Musgrave 09/28/2007
2:07-cv-00122

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [Docket 2]. The issue presented is whether the ban on limited video lottery advertising imposed by the Limited Video Lottery Act violates the plaintiff’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech. As a doctrinal matter, the advertising ban does not directly and materially advance a substantial government interest, and is therefore an impermissible restriction on commercial speech under the First Amendment. The advertising ban infringes upon the limited video lottery retailers’ right to speak and impedes the public’s ability to engage in informed political discourse. For these and the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
The Kay Company, et al. v. Equitable Production Co. 09/21/2007
2:06-cv-00612

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Limiting Defendants’ Discussions with Putative Class Members [Docket 92] and the defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Request for Discovery and Evidentiary Hearing [Docket 100].  The plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 13, 2006 in the Circuit Court of Roane County alleging that the defendants breached contractual and fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs, knowingly and intentionally deprived the plaintiffs of rents and royalties to which they are entitled, and violated W. Va. Code § 46A-6-101 [Docket 3].  The defendants timely filed their notice of removal on August 7, 2006 [Docket 3].  For the following reasons the plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. Robert Lee Stinson 09/07/2007
3:07-cr-00055

Memorandum Opinion and Order

On August 6, 2007, this Court began a bench trial at which the defendant asked to be found not guilty on the basis that the offense charged, as applied to the facts of his case, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.  The Court then recessed the trial to consider the parties’ arguments on this issue.  Upon review of those arguments, the Court FINDS the defendant not guilty of the charge contained in the superceding indictment as such a conviction would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers

Pages