Latest 5 Cases: SWN Production Co., LLC. v. Conley (Energy, Oil & Gas Law), In re M.M. (Family Law), State ex rel. Frazier v. McGraw (Government & ...

The Coronavirus and the Election: Trump’s Fateful Decisions Are Shocking and Disqualifying

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why President Trump’s inept handling of the COVID-19 pandemic should disqualify him from even running for reelection, let alone returning to office. Buchanan argues that it is shocking that we cannot predict the outcome of the 2020 election in light of Trump’s failure to address the biggest health crisis in a century and his consistent efforts to undermine the public response every step of the way.

Read More

Election Day 2020: A Good Day to End the GOP’s War on Women

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman describes the myriad ways the Trump administration has harmed the interests of women and expresses hope that the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election will mark the end of the GOP’s war on women. Grossman notes that if Biden and the Democrats win the White House and Congress, they will have not only the opportunity but the obligation to restore what the modern GOP has destroyed.

Read More

States of Anxiety: Will Federalism Save Democracy in America?

DEAN FALVY

Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, explains why federalism—the autonomy of the states in our country—has been a significant barrier to many of the authoritarian projects Trump has advanced or considered. Falvy argues that the same autonomy should prevent Trump from manipulating the election results decisively in his own favor.

Read More

SWN Production Co., LLC. v. Conley

Docket: 19-0267

Opinion Date: November 2, 2020

Judge: Margaret L. Workman

Areas of Law: Energy, Oil & Gas Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying SWN Production Company's motion to intervene in an action seeking to quiet title to a parcel of property brought by Corey Conley, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law. The underlying action involved competing claims and interests in the mineral rights to Conley's property. SWN asserted that it had interests in oil and gas properties that would be affected by interpretation of the relevant deed. After Conley filed his complaint, SWN filed a motion to intervene, which the circuit court denied. Thereafter, SWN entered into an oil and gas lease with Conley. SWN then filed a second motion to intervene, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the circuit court (1) abused its discretion in determining that the SWN motion to intervene was untimely; and (2) erred as a matter of law in finding that SWN had no property interest relating to the subject of the complaint, that disposition of the civil action would not impair or impede SWN's ability to protect its interests, and that SWN's interests were adequately protected by Conley.

In re M.M.

Docket: 19-0926

Opinion Date: October 30, 2020

Judge: Hutchison

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court reversed the disposition order of the circuit court that terminated Mother's parental rights to her children, holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that Mother failed to comply with the terms of her improvement period and in terminating Mother's parental rights on the same grounds. On appeal, Mother argued that the circuit court erred in terminating her parental rights upon finding that she failed successfully to complete the terms of her post-adjudicatory improvement period and that there was no likelihood that the circumstances of abuse and neglect could be remedied in the near future. Specifically, Mother argued that the Department of Health and Human Resources' act of stopping payment for Mother's substance abuse treatments that had been approved for her use as part of her improvement period and family case plan violated the Department's obligations to follow the approved case plan and to make efforts to preserve the family. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that Mother had not complied with her improvement period, and it was clear error for the circuit court to have terminated Mother's parental rights on this basis.

State ex rel. Frazier v. McGraw

Docket: 20-0142

Opinion Date: November 2, 2020

Judge: Armstead

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition as moulded preventing the enforcement of the circuit court's order that stayed the Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) administrative revocation of the driver's license of Dalton Watts pending appeal to the circuit court, holding that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to hear this matter. The DMV sought to prohibit the judge of the circuit court from enforcing his order staying the revocation of Watts' driver's license pending appeal, arguing that because there was no contested case in the administrative proceeding the circuit court did not have jurisdiction. The DMV further argued that Watts' requested for relief below should properly be considered a petition for writ of mandamus against the OAH, which was not a party to the appeal. The Supreme Court granted the writ as moulded, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear either the appeal or a petition for writ of mandamus in this action, thus clearly exceeding its authority in acting upon Watts' filing.

Monongahela Power Co. v. Buzminsky

Docket: 19-0228

Opinion Date: November 2, 2020

Judge: Margaret L. Workman

Areas of Law: Personal Injury

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Monongahela Power Company's (Mon Power) motion to dismiss on the basis of statutory immunity, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that a private corporate entity or employer is not entitled to immunity under W. Va. Code 15-5-11(a). Michael Buzminsky, an employee of HSC LLC, was electrocuted and injured when he was sent to perform repairs to the City of Ronceverte's wastewater treatment plant. Michael and Vickie Buzminsky (collectively, Plaintiffs) pled negligence against Mon Power, alleging that, despite its knowledge continued electrical issues, Mon Power left the plant energized. Citing the immunity extended to emergency services workers pursuant to W. Va. Code 15-5-11(a), Mon Power moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over it because it was statutorily immune. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the immunity established for "duly qualified emergency services workers" pursuant to section 15-5-11(a) applies only to individual employees and does not extend to such employees' private employer or corporate entity; and (2) Mon Power does not derivate immunity vicariously through the immunity which its employees enjoy under the statute.

Otto v. Catrow Law, PLLC

Docket: 19-0361

Opinion Date: November 2, 2020

Judge: Armstead

Areas of Law: Professional Malpractice & Ethics

In this case arising from a phishing/spoofing scheme that caused Plaintiffs to lose $266,069 the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court denying Plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend its previous grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant, holding that Plaintiffs were unable to establish that Defendant breached any duty owed to them. Plaintiffs made an offer on real estate, which was accepted. Plaintiffs intended to pay in cash. To handle the closing, Respondent was retained. Respondent sent wiring instructions for the settlement funds to Lynn Frum, Plaintiffs' real estate agent. Before the closing, an email purportedly from Frum's email address to Plaintiffs started a series of emails between Plaintiffs and the scammer. However, the email address was not the same email address from which the email from Frum was sent that day. Plaintiffs instructed their bank to transfer funds from their account to the scammer's account. When it became apparent that Plaintiffs were victimized by a scammer, they brought suit, alleging legal malpractice. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Respondent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs did not establish that Respondent neglected a reasonable duty.