Authors: Kristen M. Leddy, Russell S. Sobel, Matthew T. Yanni
| State High Court | Judicial Selection Process | Legal Authority |
|---|---|---|
General
Interim Vacancies
|
Latest News
- Kanawha County Magistrate Joe Shelton passes away - WOWK 13 News
- Senate bill would require State Police to sell West Virginia residents machine guns - Times West Virginian
- Title IX claims in San Jose State case hinge on Supreme Court decision - WBFF
- SJSU Volleyball Lawsuit Could Hinge On Upcoming Supreme Court Trans Athlete Decision - OutKick
- SJSU volleyball scandal lawsuit could be impacted by Supreme Court trans athlete cases after judge's ruling - AOL.com
- Former Westover police officer to appeal termination to the Supreme Court - WAJR
- Former Westover officer appealing termination to WV Supreme Court - dominionpost.com
- West Virginia Supreme Court to host Civics Coalition event during National Civics Learning Week - WV News
- Ewing hopes to continue ‘fascinating’ role on West Virginia Supreme Court - News and Sentinel
- Justice Thomas H. Ewing, appointed by Governor Morrisey, runs for reelection to West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals - WTRF
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