West Virginia Judiciary

Supreme Court of Appeals Argument Docket

Wednesday, January 25, 2017


Rule 20 argument - 10:00 a.m.


State of West Virginia v. Charity Nicole Bagent, No. 16-0051 - Petitioner appeals the “Amended Order for Restitution” entered on December 20, 2015, by the Circuit Court of Jefferson County for $46,592, for which petitioner is jointly and severally liable, following her guilty plea to several felonies involving the theft of forty-two iron tractor weights.

SER Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company v. Hon. David W. Nibert, Judge, and Tamara Hardman, No. 16-0884 - Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition challenging a circuit court order certifying a class action for the sole purpose of determining whether petitioner is entitled to a statutory presumption related to claims involving the offer of underinsurance motorist coverage.

Rule 19 argument


Blackrock Capital Investment Corp. v. Jeffrey Fish, et al., 15-1122 - Petitioners appeal the circuit court’s award of partial summary judgment to respondent and its finding that the indemnification and “no-liability” agreements between the parties are procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Petitioners contend the circuit court’s award of summary judgment to respondents was based upon an incomplete record and that the court failed to consider petitioners’ objections and arguments in opposition to respondent’s motion. Further, petitioners allege that the circuit court erred in failing to apply New York law (as the parties intended in their agreements) and erred in failing to invalidate the entirety of the agreements between the parties after striking the unconscionable provisions.

WV Division of Motor Vehicles v. Renee Richardson-Powers and The West Virginia Human Rights Commission, No. 15-1197 - Petitioner appeals the Human Rights Commission’s decision granting, in part, respondent’s claims that petitioner discriminated against her by failing to engage in the interactive process and accommodate her disability. Petitioner alleges that the Human Rights Commission erred in finding that respondent established a prima facie case of discrimination. Further, petitioner contends that the Human Rights Commission erred in finding that petitioner failed to provide the workplace accommodation requested by respondent; that petitioner did not engage in the interactive process; that respondent mitigated her damages; and that petitioner engaged in spoliation of evidence. Additionally, petitioner alleges that many of the findings made by the Human Rights Commission in its final order were not supported in the record. Respondent Powers asserts, by cross assignment of error, that the Human Rights Commission improperly reduced her back pay award; erred in failing to award her prejudgment interest; and erred in ordering her reinstatement as opposed to future pay.