Authors: Kristen M. Leddy, Russell S. Sobel, Matthew T. Yanni
State High Court | Judicial Selection Process | Legal Authority |
---|---|---|
General
Interim Vacancies
|
Latest News
- Bill putting education rule-making authority under West Virginia Legislature passes Senate - Parkersburg News
- W.Va. Senate approves bill to nullify local nondiscrimination ordinances - Washington Blade
- Online Circuit Court Records System Launched - The Parsons Advocate
- West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Rejects Sutton Doctrine - White and Williams LLP
- Ultimate authority over West Virginia education policies is in conflict again - West Virginia MetroNews
- Education: Lawmaker power grab should be rejected - Parkersburg News
- West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals hands down sanctions against local attorney for conduct violations - WTRF
- West Virginia Legislature mulling taking more oversight of education rule-making - Parkersburg News
- West Virginia Supreme Court dismisses Dems challenge over de Soto’s House seat - The Coal Valley News
- West Virginia Supreme Court dismisses lawsuit over 91st House district seat - Parkersburg 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.