SER ARTIMEZ v. RECHT, et al., No. 31873 (Per Curiam)(February 10, 2005). Granting a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of an order requiring payment of $484,239.51 for psychological evaluations in juvenile cases over a broad period of time in many different counties. Holding that the circuit court's order exceeded the scope of the mandate in HEWITT v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, 212 W.Va. 698, 575 S.E.2d 308 (2002), which was intended to have limited prospective effect only.

CONRAD v. CONRAD, Nos. 31747 and 31748 (Per Curiam)(February 10, 2005). Granting mixed relief from an order of the Circuit Court of Grant County that affirmed a family court final divorce order. Remanding for entry of an order assessing the value of the marital assets, including the long term disability policy benefits, as of the date of separation, with Ms. Conrad being entitled to one-half the proceeds of those holdings from the date of separation. Additionally Mr. Conrad is entitled to offset from that one-half of any amounts he expended in service of the marital debt and maintenance of the marital home between the separation and the divorce. Finally holding that no award of alimony should be made, based on the equal division of the other marital property.

MILLER v. MILLER, No. 31634 (Per Curiam)(February 10, 2005). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Jackson County. Holding that the circuit court erred in determining that the settlement proceeds of a lawsuit alleging fraud in the terms of a loan to purchase a family vehicle during the marriage constituted separate property not subject to equitable distribution. Remanding for further proceedings, including equitable distribution of the settlement monies.

STATE EX REL. LLOYD v. ZAKAIB, et al., No. 32043 (Per Curiam)(February 10, 2005). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County that dismissed an action for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. [Though filed as a petition for writ of prohibition, the case was treated as a direct appeal, in light of DIMON v. MANSY, 198 W.Va. 40, 479 S.E.2d 339 (1996). See footnote 1.] Holding that the circuit court wrongly failed to find good cause for the delay in prosecution, in light of the career-ending illness of the appellant's former counsel, the temporary illness of the trial judge, and other procedural factors.

MT. STATE BIT SERVICE, INC. v. STATE of WEST VIRGINIA DEPT. OF TAX and REVENUE, No. 31735 (ALBRIGHT, C.J.)(Davis, J. and Maynard, J., dissenting)(Starcher, J., concurring)(February 10, 2005). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County that upheld the assessment of a use tax against the taxpayer in connection with its out-of-state purchase of blasting materials that were subsequently used in this state. Holding, in a single syllabus: "An individual or business entity who is not subject to the severance tax but seeks exemption from the use tax imposed by the West Virginia Department of Tax and Revenue pursuant to West Virginia Code 11-15-9(g) (1987) [now W.Va. Code § 11-15- 9(b)(2) (2002)] based on its involvement in the production of natural resources must demonstrate that the sale or service for which exemption is sought is directly used or consumed within the production process and that such entity is engaged in one or more activities or operations that constitute the act or process of producing natural resources within the meaning of applicable statutory and regulatory provisions."

SEXTON, et al. v. GRIECO, et al., No. 31758 (Per Curiam)(February 10, 2005). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Cabell County that granted judgment as a matter of law to defendants in a medical malpractice case, after the plaintiffs' case-in-chief, on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendants' conduct was the probable cause of the injury in question. Holding that plaintiffs' expert did establish probable cause through inference, as permitted by PYGMAN v. HELTON, 148 W.Va. 281, 134 S.E.2d 717 (1964), and that nothing in W.Va. Code 55-7B-3, or anywhere else in the Act, prohibits such use of inferences. Remanded for new trial.

PARKETTE, INC. v. MICRO OUTDOORS ADVERTISING, LLC, et al., No. 31753 (Per Curiam)(February 15, 2005). Affirming an order of the Circuit Court of Harrison County that granted summary judgment in favor of an engineering company in a suit alleging that an outdoor sign next to the plaintiff's restaurant was negligently erected. Holding that no evidence was presented that would lead a trier of fact to conclude that the engineering company was liable for a breach of duty with regard to its design of the sign; distinguishing the factual circumstances in this case from those presented in EASTERN STEEL CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. CITY OF SALEM, 209 W.Va. 392, 549 S.E.2d 266 (2001).