Authors: Kristen M. Leddy, Russell S. Sobel, Matthew T. Yanni
State High Court | Judicial Selection Process | Legal Authority |
---|---|---|
General
Interim Vacancies
|
Latest News
- With women’s sports case, SCOTUS to rule if we live in reality or fantasy - The College Fix
- Court Upholds West Virginia Law Protecting Women From Dangerous Abortion Pill - Focus on the Family
- Four names sent to governor for filling state Supreme Court vacancy - WV MetroNews
- 6 Takeways From the West Virginia Abortion-Pills Court Decision - National Catholic Register
- West Virginia's ban on the abortion pill upheld by federal appeals court - Christian Post
- Owensboro native named in landmark Supreme Court case focused on women’s sports - The Owensboro Times
- West Virginia ban on mifepristone’s use in abortion upheld by federal court - OSV News
- Supreme Court to hear West Virginia’s transgender athlete law case - MSN
- Here's a list: 15 apply for WV Supreme Court seat to be vacated by Justice Walker - Charleston Gazette-Mail
- LEGAL DIGEST: WV’s abortion pill restriction upheld; Planned Parenthood defunding still on hold - Baptist 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.