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.

James Allen Harper et al. v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia, et al. 04/11/2006
2:03-cv-00516

Judgment Order

For the reasons stated in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered this day, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiffs’ Complaint for a permanent injunction and declaratory relief be, and the same hereby is, granted.  It is declared that West Virginia Code § 24A-2-5 is invalid insofar as it requires solid waste haulers engaged in the interstate transportation of solid waste to obtain a certificate of convenience and necessity from the PSC prior to providing those services.  The PSC is therefore permanently enjoined from interfering with Plaintiffs’ interstate transportation of solid waste from West Virginia to other states without having first obtained a certificate of convenience and necessity from the PSC. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

Author:
Mary E. Stanley
In the Matter of the Complaint of Ingram Barge Company 03/13/2006
2:05-cv-00379

Order

Pending before the court are the joint motion of the claimants, the administrators of the estates of Randall Vaughan and Justin Smoot, to dissolve the injunction and stay the limitation of liability proceedings [Docket 17] and their supplemental motion to dissolve the injunction and stay the proceedings [Docket 45].  Because the amended stipulations filed by the claimants adequately protect the rights of the limitation plaintiffs, the court GRANTS the motion, DISSOLVES the injunction, and STAYS these proceedings.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
James Allen Harper et al. v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia, et al. 02/27/2006
2:03-cv-00516

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Currently pending before the court is Plaintiffs’ Renewed3 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed January 6, 2006 (Docket Sheet Document # 121).  All Defendants have responded to Plaintiffs’ Motion (## 125, 127, 128, 132), and Plaintiffs have replied (# 129).  On February 14, 2006, the court heard oral argument.

Author:
Mary E. Stanley
Turnpike Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company and Ford Motor Credit Company 02/22/2006
2:05-cv-00398

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss [Docket 9] filed by Ford Motor Credit Company ("Ford Credit").  Ford Credit claims the plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  For the reasons explained herein, the court DENIES Ford Credit’s motion.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Ruth E. Royal v. John E. Potter 02/21/2006
2:04-cv-01114

Memorandum Opinion and Order

On October 15, 2004, Ruth Royal filed this action alleging sex based discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e et seq.  She alleges a claim of sex discrimination and failure to promote in violation of Title VII, a retaliation claim, and a hostile work environment claim.  On January 3, 2006, both parties filed memoranda in support of motions for summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim (Doc. 67, 69).  After reviewing the motions and hearing oral argument, the Court DENIES both motions for summary judgment.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
In the Matter of the Application of the United States of America 02/17/2006
2:06-mc-00028

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the Application of the United States of America for an Order Authorizing the Installation and Use of a Pen Register With Caller Identification Device and Cell Site Location Authority on a Certain Cellular Telephone ("Application") . It is hereby ORDERED that the Application is filed UNDER SEAL until further order of this court.

Author:
Mary E. Stanley
Robert Peters v. David Bruce Small, et al. 02/08/2006
3:05-cv-00598

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court is the Defendants’ Motion In Limine to exclude evidence that the Plaintiff suffered mental distress and/or psychic injury because the Plaintiff witnessed the violent death of a person, unrelated to the Plaintiff,  who was involved in the same accident as the Plaintiff. The Court GRANTS the Defendants’ Motion In Limine because the Plaintiff was unrelated to the victim who died in the accident.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Albert Walker v. The City of Charleston, West Virginia 02/02/2006
2:05-cv-00658

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint [Docket 21]. I GRANT the plaintiff’s motion.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Piedmont Behavioral Health Center, LLC, et al. v. David Stewart, et al. 01/31/2006
2:04-cv-00946

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are the motion for partial summary judgment of the plaintiffs [Docket 73], the motion for summary judgment of defendants Dr. David Stewart and the West Virginia Department of Education [Docket 71], and the motion for summary judgment of defendants Paul Nusbaum and the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resource [Docket 75].  For the reasons stated herein, the court GRANTS the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and DENIES the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Don Blankenship v. Joe Manchin, III 01/25/2006
2:05-cv-00606

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending are defendant’s motions (1) to dismiss, and (2) to stay discovery pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss.  The motions were filed respectively on September 13 and October 31, 2005.  The court ORDERS that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a surreply, filed November 4, 2005, be, and it hereby is, granted.

Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.

Pages