Authors: Kristen M. Leddy, Russell S. Sobel, Matthew T. Yanni
| State High Court | Judicial Selection Process | Legal Authority |
|---|---|---|
General
Interim Vacancies
|
Latest News
- Supreme court blocks SNAP for 42 million Americans at 9PM Friday, extending benefits collapse - here's what happens now - moneywise.com
- West Virginia Attorney General J.B. McCuskey remarks on first year in office and future plans - News and Sentinel
- West Virginia Supreme Court dismisses appeal of Sissonville couple convicted of trafficking and abusing their adopted children - WOAY-TV
- E&E News: Supreme Court seems to think Trump’s tariff plan is a major question - POLITICO Pro
- W.Va. Supreme Court dismisses appeal in historic child abuse, human trafficking case - WCHS
- US appeals court overturns West Virginia landmark opioid lawsuit decision - abcnews.go.com
- The 2017 investigation that changed the West Virginia Supreme Court - WCHS
- i3 Verticals and West Virginia Supreme Court Expand Partnership - Business Wire
- West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals announces contract with i3 Vertical - WV News
- 12 candidates vie to fill West Virginia Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Tim Armstead - WV News
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.


Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia