Summaries of 22 new opinions are now available online. (Review them on one page, or split by category among civil, criminal, and family.) Subscribers to the e-mail opinion summary service will receive all the summaries this morning. Of the 22 opinions covered, twelve are signed opinions that articulate new points of law. For civil practitioners, notable issues include:

• newly-construed limitations period for actions arising from closed-ended credit transactions
• legal representation of county school boards
• further elucidation of attorney-client privilege and work product claims in bad faith litigation; see also Justice Davis' concurring opinion in the Medical Assurance case, discussing the crime-fraud exception in this context
• finality of partial summary judgment in multiple defendant actions, inherent power of courts to reconsider interlocutory orders
• calculation of tax credit for gas storage business
• assignment of legal malpratice claims is void as against public policy
• high school athlete was not a public figure for purposes of defamation action against newspaper; general review of public figure analysis in defamation actions
• requirements for finality of infant settlement

For criminal practitioners, new points of law were announced regarding the offenses of removing signs from property and failing to identify oneself to a law enforcement officer, as well as the process for allocating credit for time served by youthful offenders in certain situations. In addition, the Court revisited and modified the bifurcation and status element holdings previously announced in State v. Nichols.

STATE v. KENT, No. 30649 (Per Curiam)(Maynard, J., dissenting)(Albright, J., concurring)(May 23, 2003). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Marion County that denied defendant's motion for new trial on charges of first-degree murder after he received a sentence of life without mercy. Holding that the circuit court erred in failing to grant a new trial in light of the fact that the appellant was not competent to stand trial, as he lacked the mental capacity to participate meaningfully in his defense.

STATE v. SRNSKY, No. 30896 (ALBRIGHT, J.)(Davis, J. and Maynard, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)(Starcher, J., concurring)(May 16, 2003). Reversing convictions obtained in the Circuit Court of Tucker County for obstructing an officer, trespassing on property other than a structure, and removing a "posted" sign, holding that insufficient evidence was presented to support the convictions. Holding that an essential element of the offense of removing "posted" signs under WV Code 20-2-10 is proof that the property on which the signs were posted is owned by someone other than the person charged with the offense. Holding further that refusal to identify oneself to a law enforcement officer does not, standing alone, form the basis for a charge of obstructing a law enforcement officer in performing official duties in violation of WV Code 61-5-17(a); however, the charge may be substantiated when a citizen does not supply identification when required to do so by express statutory direction or when the refusal occurs after a law enforcement officer has communicated the reason why the citizen's name is being sought in relation to an officer's official duties.  [Permanent Link]  Google It! 

STATE v. McCRAINE, No. 30592 (ALBRIGHT, J.)(Davis, J., and Maynard, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)(Starcher, J., concurring)(May 16, 2003). Reversing convictions for third offense DUI and driving revoked for DUI obtained in the Circuit Court of Berkeley County. Holding that knowledge of the revocation of a driver's license is an element of the offense set forth in WV Code 17B-4-3(b). Prima facie evidence of this knowledge may be established by offering proof of mailing the notice of revocation in accordance with statutory requirements. Defendants may rebut the inference of knowledge, though lack of knowledge must be the result of something other than a defendant's wrongful or dilatory conduct. Further holding that a trial court must grant bifurcation in all cases tried before a jury in which a criminal defendant seeks to contest the validity of any alleged prior conviction as a status element and timely requests that the jury consider the issue of a prior conviction separately from the issue of the underlying charge. To the extent that State v. Nichols, 208 WV 432 (1999), conflicts with this holding, it is modified. Application of this holding is limited to appellant's retrial "and to cases in litigation or on appeal during the pendency of this appeal in which the issue has been properly preserved." See fn. 21.

SER SHIFFLET v. RUDLOFF, No. 30968 (Per Curiam)(Davis, J. and Maynard, J., dissenting)(May 8, 2003). Granting habeas relief to a petitioner who, after being arrested for bank robbery, remained in jail or a mental hospital for over a year without having his case presente3d to a grand jury. Prior to oral argument, a special grand jury returned an indictment. Holding that failure to indict violated the two-term rule set forth in WV Code 62-2-12.

STATE v. RYAN FARNSWORTH SCOTT, No. 30692 (STARCHER, C.J.)(Davis, J., and Maynard, J., dissenting)(May 7, 2003). Reversing a sentencing order entered in the Circuit Court of Wood County that failed to credit the defendant for the days he served in pre-sentence custody. Holding that where a criminal defendant has been placed on probation after successfully completing a program of rehabilitation at a young adult offenders center under the Youthful Offenders Act, WV Code 25-4-1 to -12, and such probation is subsequently revoked pursuant to WV Code 25-4-6, the circuit court's sentencing order must credit the defendant with time spent in incarceration in such a manner that the defendant's date of eligibility for parole is the same as if the defendant had not been committed to a young adult offender center and placed on probation.

STATE v. BRANDON JOHNSON, No. 30903 (Per Curiam)(Starcher, C.J., dissenting)(May 6, 2003). Affirming a forty-eight year sentence imposed by the Circuit Court of Ohio County following a jury conviction of first degree robbery. Rejecting appellant's contention that the photo array was tainted because the victim had smoked crack cocaine eight hours prior to making the identification. Further rejecting appellant's contention that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the offense.

LONGWELL, et al. v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF MARSHALL COUNTY, No. 30987 (DAVIS, J.)(Starcher, C.J., concurring)(McGraw, J., dissenting)(May 6, 2003). Affirming a judgment of the Circuit Court of Marshall County that rejected a citizen challenge to the practice of hiring private counsel to represent county boards of education. Holding that when a county board of education is in need of legal services, it may exercise its own discretion in determining whether to utilize the services of the county prosecuting attorney, who has a duty to represent it under WV Code 7-4-1, or to hire its own legal counsel pursuant to WV Code 18-5-13(l).