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.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending are cross motions for summary judgment as to Defendant Louise Goldston [Docs. 65, 67] and a motion for summary judgment filed by the Raleigh County Commission, Jeff McPeake, Brian White, and Bobby Stump1 (collectively, the “Raleigh County Defendants”) [Doc.63]. The matter is ready for adjudication.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court is Defendant Harold Ward’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 44. For the following reasons, this Motion is DENIED, in part, and GRANTED, in part. ECF No. 44.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court is Defendant CSX Transportation Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgement, ECF No. 31. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
The Court has previously entered default judgment against the Defendants concerning liability. [Doc. 32]. The issue of damages is ready for adjudication following a July 15, 2021 evidentiary hearing. [Doc. 42].
Memorandum Opinion and Order
On March 26, 2021, counsel and the parties appeared for disposition. Having received the parties' supplemental briefs as to Objection Two and Objection Ten to the Presentence Investigation Report, the matter is ready for adjudication.
Memorandum Opinion And Order
Pending before the court is the United States' Motion for an Order Directing
Movant to File a Privilege Waiver. (ECF No. 37). The undersigned notes that the United States Attorney's Office continues to file, in § 2255 cases alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, the same motion asking the undersigned to compel the movant to file a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, notwithstanding that in each instance, the Court has declined to compel the movant to sign a waiver...
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is Defendant US Trinity Energy Services, LLC’s (“Trinity”) Motion to Compel Arbitration, Motion to Stay, and (alternative) Motion to Dismiss Counts III and IV of the Amended Complaint [Doc. 8], filed October 9, 2020. M.T. Bores, LLC (“MT Bores”) responded on November 2, 2020, [Doc. 14], to which Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (“MVP”) and Trinity replied. [Docs. 16, 17]. Also pending is Plaintiff MT Bores’ Motion to Compel Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC to Participate in Arbitration Between MT Bores, LLC and U.S. Trinity Energy Services, LLC [Doc. 21], filed November 17, 2020. After several extensions, MVP and Trinity responded respectively on January 8, 2021, and January 22, 2021. [Docs. 29, 31]. MT Bores did not reply.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
A fear of the unknown and discomfort with the unfamiliar have motivated many of the most malignant harms committed by our country’s governments on their own citizens. Out of fear of those less like them, the powerful have made laws that restricted who could attend what schools, who could work certain jobs, who could marry whom, and even how people can practice their religions. Recognizing that classifying human beings in ways that officially sanction harm is antithetical to democracy, the states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment. It ensures that no state may “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Accordingly, the courts are most juberous of any law—state or federal—that treats groups of people differently.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 33], upon which the Court held an evidentiary hearing on March 5, 2021.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is Defendant’s motion to suppress almost three pounds of methamphetamine1 and $7,061 in cash seized during a search of his residence by the Metropolitan Drug Enforcement Network Team (“MDENT”). I find that neither the warrant application nor the warrant issued contain statements of apparent facts from which a reasonable judicial officer or a reasonable police officer could find probable cause. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.