Authors: Kristen M. Leddy, Russell S. Sobel, Matthew T. Yanni
| State High Court | Judicial Selection Process | Legal Authority |
|---|---|---|
General
Interim Vacancies
|
Latest News
- Brad McElhinny Reports: Hilltop House Project Part of State Supreme Court Hearing into West Virginia tourism district law - The Panhandle News Network
- West Virginia Supreme Court hears arguments in Tourism Development Act challenge - News and Sentinel
- State Supreme Court hears arguments over status of Magistrate Shambaugh’s suspension - Morgan Messenger
- Supreme Court hears oral arguments on controversial Harpers Ferry tourism district law - WV News
- WV Board of Ed. School Funding Formula is Inadequate - tylerstarnews.com
- West Virginia Supreme Court holds session at Wyoming County high school for LAWS program - WVVA
- West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals visits Wyoming County's Westside High as part of LAWS program - The Register-Herald
- West Virginia Supreme Court holds session at Wyoming County high school for LAWS program - WVVA
- West Virginia State Police investigating matter involving East Fairmont High School teacher - WV News
- West Virginia Supreme Court to bring LAWS civics program to Wyoming County - 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