Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
Marshall University 1. In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Personal Injury Case) - 32552
Argument
Docket
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Joan C. Edwards Performing Arts Center
CERTIFIED QUESTION: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, as interpreted by State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) preclude a bifurcated trial plan in a consolidated action
consisting of personal injury claims of approximately 1,000 individual smokers, wherein Phase I of the trial would decide certain elements of liability and a punitive damages multiplier and Phase II of the trial would decide for
each plaintiff compensatory damages and punitive damages based upon the punitive damages multiplier determined in Phase I?
Circuit Court's Answer: Yes.
2. U. S. Steel Mining Co., LLC, et al. v. The Hon. Virgil Helton, State Tax Comm’r - 32528 -
This is an appeal by the coal company from an order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County holding that certain state taxes on coal exported to
customers in foreign countries do not violate the Import-Export Clause of the Unites States Constitution.
3. Carolyn Clark, M.D. v. William S. Druckman, et al. - 32576 -
AND Carolyn Clark, M.D. v. William S. Druckman, et al. - 32577- Certified questions from the Circuit Court of Cabell County are presented to this Court.
The certified questions from the circuit court as follows:
1
. Does an attorney for a party in a lawsuit owe a duty of care to that party's adversary in the law suit such that the adversary may assert a cause of action for negligence against the opposing attorney?Answer of the Circuit Court:
No.
2. Is a party to a civil action barred, by virtue of the litigation privilege, from bringing any type of claim for civil damages against the
opposing party's attorney if the alleged act of the attorney in the course of the attorney's representation of the opposing party is conduct and not a written or oral statement which arose in the civil action and which has some
relationship to that civil action?
Answer of the Circuit Court:
Yes.4. George B. Wilson v. William Bernet/Vanderbilt University - 32578
- Three certified questions from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County are presented in this action. The questions are as follows: 1. May the holding in Kessel v. Leavitt, 204 W. Va. 95, 511 S.E.2d 720 (1998), which adopted a cause of action for tortious interference with a parental or custodial relationship, be applied to maintain a cause of action against an adverse child psychiatry expert witness who provides expert testimony in a hearing concerning visitation and custody and who participates in a reunification plan between mother and child pursuant to the orders of the court?Circuit Court's Answer: Yes.
2. Does a cause of action for tortious interference with a parental or custodial relationship as recognized in Kessel v. Leavitt, 204 W. Va. 95, 511 S.E.2d 720 (1998), exist in favor of a litigant involved in child custody/visitation proceedings against an attorney representing an opposing party in that litigation?
Circuit Court's Answer: Yes.
3. If the tortious interference with a parental/custodial relationship claim is based upon factual issues and/or allegations that were raised and resolved against the litigant in the child custody/visitation proceeding, must the litigant first seek and obtain relief from the judgment entered in the child custody/visitation proceeding with respect to such issue or allegations pursuant to Rule 60 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure or otherwise as a condition precedent to assert the tortious interference claim?
Circuit Court's Answer: No.
The briefs and other filings are provided in PDF format.
Download free Reader 
Wednesday, August 24, 2005