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 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.
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].
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending are plaintiff and defendants’ motions for summary judgment, filed respectively on September 9, 2005, and September 2, 2005.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before this court is petitioner’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate and reinstate his sentence. The petitioner asserts that his attorney’s ineffective assistance denied his right to a direct appeal of his conviction. For reasons discussed herein, the court GRANTS the motion.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before this court is the plaintiffs’ motion to remand [Docket 3]. The plaintiffs seek to remand this civil action to the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). Plaintiffs allege that the notice of removal was either (1) filed before dismissal of the only nondiverse defendant, and therefore premature, or in the alternative, (2) filed more than thirty days after the running of the statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), and therefore time-barred. For the reasons stated below, the court rejects these arguments and DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to remand.