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.

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
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.
2:05-cr-00161

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on outrageous conduct on the part of the government (Doc. No. 17).  At the hearing held on pretrial motions in this case, the court took this motion under advisement pending written opinion.  For the reasons outlined below, defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

Author:
David A. Faber
6:04-cv-01185

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are cross motions for summary judgment.  The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Docket 16] and DENIES the defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Docket 13].

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:04-cv-00835

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending are plaintiff and defendants’ motions for summary judgment, filed respectively on September 9, 2005, and September 2, 2005.

Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
3:04-cv-01096

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is a motion for summary judgment brought by defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (hereinafter “Countrywide”) and Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A. (hereinafter “Wells Fargo”) pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
2:05-cv-00578

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Defendants Monsanto Company and Pharmacia Corporation removed this case to this Court on July 18, 2005.  Plaintiffs moved for remand asserting Defendants’ removal petition was improper because it was untimely and taken without the consent of the Azko Defendants,  and that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action.  For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for remand, and ORDERS the case be REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
3:00-cv-00582

Memorandum Opinion and Order

On August 5, 1999, plaintiffs were injured when their personal water crafts went over the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam on the Ohio river.  The dam is operated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and is owned by the United States.  Although unfamiliar with the section of the river on which they were traveling, plaintiffs had not consulted any navigation charts, chartlets, maps, publications, or other navigational aids.  As they traveled towards the dam, plaintiffs failed to see any of the warning signs posted along the river.  They contend that the signs failed to signal the danger of the dam to watercraft traveling the middle of the river channel, and that some of the warning signs were obscured by bushes and trees.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
3:04-cv-00084

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Plaintiff, Ohio River Valley Environmental Coalition Inc. (OVEC), brought this action to challenge the approval by the Defendant, Secretary of the Interior, of changes in West Virginia’s surface mining regulations proposed by the state’s Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP).  The parties have submitted cross-motions for summary judgment, and the matter is ripe for decision.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
5:04-cv-00376

Revised Memorandum Opinion and Order

Before the court is the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  For the reasons detailed in this opinion and order, defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

Author:
David A. Faber

Pages