West Virginia Judiciary

Supreme Court of Appeals Argument Docket

Tuesday, September 12, 2017


Rule 20 argument - 10:00 a.m.


SER ERP Environmental Fund v. Hon. Warren R. McGraw, Judge, et al., No. 17-0148 - Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to challenge a circuit court mandamus order affecting the rights – which petitioner states will amount to several million dollars – of an absent, but necessary party, in violation of both West Virginia law and basic notions of due process.

SER Scott R. Smith, Prosecuting Attorney v. Hon. David J. Sims, Judge, et al., No. 17-0156 - Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition challenging a circuit court order giving a criminal defendant credit on his current sentence for time served on a prior unrelated charge.

Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Nancy McGarry, No. 16-0802 - Petitioner Cavalry SPV I, LLC appeals the August 1, 2016, order of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County that denied its motion for summary judgment and granted Respondent Nancy McGarry’s cross-motion for summary judgment in this case involving the collection of a debt on an unpaid credit card account. Dismissed.

Rule 19 argument


Michelle Evans v. Daniel North, et al., No. 16-0288 - Petitioner appeals the circuit court’s order granting respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, in this civil matter.

E.K. v. WV Department of Health and Human Resources, No. 16-0773 - Petitioner appeals the dismissal of his action against respondent related to alleged sexual abuse by the woman that was initially petitioner’s foster mother and then his adopted mother while petitioner was in the custody or control of respondent.

First Mercury Insurance Company v. Jeffrey Russell, et al., No. 16-0596 - The Russells filed a deliberate intent suit against Kimes Steel, Mr. Russell’s employer. First Mercury Insurance Company, Kimes Steel’s insurer under a commercial general liability policy, appeals the circuit court’s partial summary judgment order in which the court ruled that Kimes Steel was entitled to coverage and defense in plaintiffs’ suit, despite an exclusion in the policy that purported to exclude deliberate intent claims from coverage.