Authors: Kristen M. Leddy, Russell S. Sobel, Matthew T. Yanni
State High Court | Judicial Selection Process | Legal Authority |
---|---|---|
General
Interim Vacancies
|
Latest News
- Analysis | Post-Roe, some abortion clinics are moving to more ... - The Washington Post
- AG Yost Pushes Back on Biden’s Attempt to Rescind Protection for ... - Ohio Attorney General
- Paxton Defends Pro-Life West Virginia Law Against a Challenge ... - Texas Attorney General (.gov)
- Biden's student loan forgiveness program faces a new threat from Senate Republicans - CNN
- Opinion: US Supreme Court likely to undo Michigan's gun reform - Detroit Free Press
- 3 civil rights groups urge U.S. Supreme Court to let injunction stand ... - WV News
- Liability for employers for workers' actions off duty takes center stage ... - WV News
- This woman won 34 medals, tells Supreme Court she's retiring from ... - Must Read Alaska
- High school students learn more about West Virginia's Supreme ... - Times-West Virginian
- West Virginia interim state police head begins investigation - 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.