Authors: Kristen M. Leddy, Russell S. Sobel, Matthew T. Yanni
State High Court | Judicial Selection Process | Legal Authority |
---|---|---|
General
Interim Vacancies
|
Latest News
- West Virginia Supreme Court upholds sentence in Preston robbery/murder - WV News
- State Health Plan's refusal to cover transgender care ruled discriminatory - North State Journal
- NC, WV Transgender Care Policies Are Discriminatory, Court Rules - ProPublica
- North Carolina, West Virginia can't deny trans health care - Advocate.com
- W.Va. Supreme Court hears arguments in Ohio County GOP executive committee lawsuit - Wheeling Intelligencer
- West Virginia and North Carolina's transgender care coverage policies discriminate, judges rule (copy) - Bluefield Daily Telegraph
- WV Supreme Court adds Spanish translation to Emergency Court Forms - WDTV
- Court Orders North Carolina, West Virginia to Fund Sex Changes in State Health Care Plans - National Catholic Register
- West Virginia's and North Carolina's transgender care coverage policies discriminate, judges rule - WV News
- West Virginia's and North Carolina's transgender care coverage policies discriminate, judges rule - The Associated Press
Scholarship & White Papers
-
CAPERTON Decision Prompts Changes to Judicial Recusal Standards and Procedures
In June of 2009, the Supreme Court decided the case Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co.1 The Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment is violated when a judge denies a recusal motion based on the judge’s benefit of “extraordinarily large” campaign contributions or independent expenditures from the opposing party.2 Before this ruling, the 14th Amendment required recusal only when the judge had a financial interest contingent on the outcome of the case, or if the judge had participated in a previous stage of the case and was likely biased from that participation.
-
West Virginia Court Expands COPPERWELD Doctrine
In the 1984 case Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.,1 the United States Supreme Court forever altered antitrust law by holding that a parent company cannot conspire with one of its wholly owned subsidiaries such as to violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.2 Since that time, lower courts have been left to decide the scope of what has become known as the Copperweld Doctrine. A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia clarified just how far the Copperweld Doctrine extends within West Virginia’s own antitrust law jurisprudence.