SER City of Weston v. Bedell, Judge, et al.
Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF
WEST VIRGINIA
September 1997 Term
_____________
No. 24183
_____________
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL.
CITY OF WESTON,
A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
HONORABLE THOMAS A. BEDELL,
JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY
THE TOWN OF ANMOORE,
A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND
DAVID L. CURTIS,
Respondents.
____________________________________________________________________
Petition for a Writ of Prohibition
WRIT DENIED
____________________________________________________________________
Submitted: September 9, 1997
Filed: October 6, 1997
Steven P.
McGowan Katherine
M. Carpenter
Amy M.
Smith David
C. Glover
Steptoe &
Johnson Waters,
Warner & Harris
Clarksburg, West
Virginia Clarksburg,
West Virginia
Attorneys for
Petitioner Attorneys
for The Honorable
Thomas
A. Bedell and the Town Robert M. Morris of
Anmoore
Weston, West Virginia
Attorney for David L. Curtis
The opinion of the Court was delivered PER
CURIAM.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. "'In
determining whether to grant a rule to show cause in prohibition
when a court is not acting in excess of its jurisdiction, this
Court will look to the adequacy of other available remedies such
as appeal and to the over-all economy of effort and money among
litigants, lawyers and courts; however, this Court will use
prohibition in this discretionary way to correct only
substantial, clear-cut, legal errors plainly in contravention of
a clear statutory, constitutional, or common law mandate which
may be resolved independently of any disputed facts and only in
cases where there is a high probability that the trial will be
completely reversed if the error is not corrected in advance.'
Syllabus Point 1, Hinkle v. Black, 164 W.Va. 112, 262 S.E.2d 744
(1979)." Syl. Pt. 12, Glover v. Narick, 184 W.Va.
381, 400 S.E.2d 816 (1990).
Per Curiam:See footnote 1 1
This
is an original jurisdiction proceeding. The petitioner, City of
Weston, asks this Court to prohibit the Honorable Thomas A.
Bedell of the Circuit Court of Harrison County, respondent, from
proceeding further in a civil action naming the petitioner as a
defendant.See footnote 2 2
I.
This matter
arises out of an underlying civil action brought against the
petitioner and David L. Curtis by the Town of Anmoore. The
complaint in the civil action alleges that the Town of Anmoore
and Mr. Curtis executed an agreement on November 11, 1995. The
agreement obligated Mr. Curtis to be a police officer for the
Town of Anmoore for one year. The Town of Anmoore incurred
expenses in having Mr. Curtis trained at the State Police
Academy.See footnote 3 3
Mr. Curtis graduated from the academy on December 15, 1995.
Prior to starting work as a police officer with the Town of
Anmoore, he was hired as a police officer by the petitioner. The
Town
of Anmoore filed an action against the
petitioner, alleging tortious interference with an employment
contract and unjust enrichment.See footnote 4 4 The civil action
was filed in the Circuit Court of Harrison County. The petitioner
moved the circuit court to dismiss or transfer the civil action
to Lewis County, on the grounds of improper venue. The circuit
court denied the motion. The petitioner has invoked this Court's
original jurisdiction seeking an order prohibiting the circuit
court from proceeding further in the underlying action, and
directing the circuit court to dismiss the action against it or
transfer the matter to Lewis County.
II.
We set out the standard for reviewing a
request for a writ of prohibition in syllabus point 12 of Glover
v. Narick, 184 W.Va. 381, 400 S.E.2d 816 (1990):
In
determining whether to grant a rule to show cause in prohibition
when a court is not acting in excess of its jurisdiction, this
Court will look to the adequacy of other available remedies such
as appeal and to the over-all economy of effort and money among
litigants, lawyers and courts; however, this Court will use
prohibition in this discretionary way to correct only
substantial, clear-cut, legal errors plainly in contravention of
a clear statutory, constitutional, or common law mandate which
may be resolved independently of any disputed facts and only in
cases where there is a high probability that the trial will be
completely reversed if the error is not corrected in advance.
Syllabus Point 1, Hinkle v. Black, 164 W.Va. 112, 262 S.E.2d 744
(1979).
The record in this case is insufficiently developed for this
Court to determine whether
a substantial, clear-cut legal error has occurred, therefore
the writ prayed for must be denied.See footnote 5 5
Writ Denied.
Footnote: 1 1 We point out that a per curiam opinion is not legal precedent. See Lieving v. Hadley, 188 W.Va. 197, 201 n.4, 423 S.E.2d 600, 604 n 4. (1992) ("Per curiam opinions ...
are used to decide only the specific case before the Court; everything in a per curiam opinion beyond the syllabus point is merely obiter dicta.... Other courts, such as many of the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals, have gone to non-published (not-to-be-cited) opinions to deal with similar cases. We do not have such a specific practice, but instead use published per curiam opinions. However, if rules of law or accepted ways of doing things are to be changed, then this Court will do so in a signed opinion, not a per curiam opinion.").
Footnote: 2 2 The petitioner also named as respondents in this matter the Town of Anmoore and David L. Curtis. The Town of Anmoore filed a joint response with Judge Bedell. Mr. Curtis filed a response in which he does not oppose the relief requested by the petitioner.
Footnote: 3 3 The training occurred between the period September 5, 1995 through December 15, 1995.
Footnote: 4 4 The claim against Mr. Curtis was for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
Footnote: 5 5 The petitioner is not precluded from bringing this matter back before this Court on a properly developed record and as an appeal from a final judgment order.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.