1.	Eric S. Black No. 001844 Grant 4-1 [Scott, J.]	Petitioner in State of West Virginia ex. rel. Michael Waugh v. Tim Bowen, No. 001844, seeks motion for leave to file petition for appeal out of time. Petitioner was convicted of several counts of sexual assault. His petition for appeal was denied in July of 1997. His petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied by the Circuit Court of Morgan County in July of 1999. A request was made to have counsel appointed to represent petitioner on the appeal of his habeas matter in August and again in October of 1999. The court appointed the public defender corporation to represent petitioner in early November. However, the public defender corporation had hired former county assistant prosecutor John Adams who was the lead prosecutor on the underlying charges against petitioner. Adams filed a motion to withdraw and by order dated in December Adams and the public defender corporation were granted leave to withdraw and current counsel was appointed. However, appointment of current counsel was beyond the four month period in which petitioner was to file his appeal. Current counsel also indicates that although the order appointing him was dated in December, it was not forwarded to him until January 10, 2000.
2.	Tracy L. Webb No. 001653 Grant 5-0	Employer in Randall Z. Bower v. Workers' Compensation Commissioner and Maple Meadow Mining Company, No. 001653, moves for expedited consideration and motion to consolidate this appeal with the pending appeal in Repass v. Workers' Compensation Commissioner, No. 27730, stating this case raises the same legal issues. The primary issue in Repass relates to whether the chief administrative law judge has the authority to issue policy memoranda on a legal issue and require that all pending and future decisions follow the policy and it challenges the validity of the workers' compensation division's regulations for the evaluation of claims and the determination of a claimant's degree of whole body medical impairment.
3.	Paul G. Taylor No. 002011 Refuse 4-1 [McGraw, J.]	Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition in State ex. rel. Randy Faircloth and Architectural Metal Works, Inc. v. The Honorable David H. Sanders, No. 002011, to prohibit the lower court from enforcing an order to seize certain property in possession of petitioner. Petitioner and two Canadian corporations had a written contract wherein they performed architectural metal work and finishings to buildings. Petitioner worked as a subcontractor to the Canadian corporations. The general contractor placed two trucks, a trailer, and other tools and equipment with Faircloth which he titled in West Virginia with the general contractor reserving a lien on the titles. A dispute arose under the agreement and all parties agreed to terminate with Faircloth demanding back wages and expenses and the general contractor demanding the surrender of the trucks and equipment. The general contractor brought an action for damages for breach of contract and included a demand for pre-judgment relief in the form of possession of the trucks and equipment. The verified complaint was filed on June 8, 2000, with a courtesy copy mailed to counsel for petitioners. However, service of process was not effected until June 24, 2000. A hearing was scheduled for June 30. Petitioner claims that the hearing was scheduled, “unscheduled,” and rescheduled in a very short time frame which prohibited him from having sufficient time for a meaningful hearing. The hearing was held and the attorneys for the general contractor proffered their testimony and the court issued an order directing immediate seizure of the property with bond in an amount which was double the value of the property as is required by statute. The statute provides that the prejudgment hearing shall be held “in not less than five nor more than ten days after service.” Petitioners claim that they were not afforded five “clear days” as required by statute. Service of process was on Saturday, June 24, and by not counting Sunday, the hearing was held on the fifth day.
4.	Tony Givens Pro se No. Refuse 5-0	Pro se litigant Tony Givens requests that a video tape of his arrest by the City of Fairmont Police Department on October 4, 1997 be given to him, and that the prosecuting attorney be required to find a copy and provide it to him.
5.	Stephen R. Crislip No. 28205 Refuse 3-2 [Maynard, C.J., Scott, J.]	Petitioner in One-Gateway Associates, LLC v. The Honorable Gary L. Johnson, No. 28205, seeks clarification of the court's stay involving an access road to a Wal-Mart and other businesses. A petition for writ of prohibition was presented to the Court on September 7, 2000, by Gateway (Wal-Mart) which sought to prohibit the circuit court from enforcing its' order granting injunctive relief. At the time the petition was filed, the access road to the Wal-Mart property was closed by a temporary barricade pursuant to an order of the lower court. Petitioner argues that the sole relief sought by the petitioner by way of the petition for writ of prohibition was the opening of the access road and states he felt that the stay contemplated by Rule 14(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure would stay the effect of the injunction since there are no other proceedings below. RDI (the owner of the neighboring property which obtained the closing of the access road) opposes reopening the road and argues that the stay under Rule 14(b) has the effect of maintaining the status quo at the time of the filing of the petition and at that time the road was closed. The Division of Highways takes no position on this issue.
6.	Cynthia M. Ranson No. 002093 Refuse 5-0	Petitioner in Eugenia Mosquat v. The Honorable Paul Zakaib, No. 002093, seeks to prohibit enforcement of an order by Judge Zakaib ordering the production of an audiotape of a telephone conversation between petitioner's counsel and counsel for the intervenors below. Petitioner is the decedent's daughter and personal representative and plaintiff in a wrongful death suit. Intervenors below are the brothers and sisters of plaintiff's decedent and seek to challenge whether petitioner is satisfying her obligations as personal representative of the decedent's estate in the wrongful death litigation. A telephone conversation was held in March of 2000 between petitioner's counsel and counsel for the brothers and sisters (Margaret Workman). They discussed various issues regarding the wrongful death suit and petitioner's counsel states that she assured counsel for the brothers and sisters that she was aware of the duties of the administratrix of the deceased mother's estate and that her law firm would make sure that the executrix fulfilled those duties and keep the brothers and sisters apprised of the wrongful death litigation. Petitioner suggests that the lower court's ruling was error because the tape is work product and therefore protected from discovery absent a showing of substantial need and that the court has not articulated specific reasons for its' ruling in this matter. Intervenors argue that there has been a ruling only with regard to discovery and not admissibility. Intervenors note that the burden is on the party asserting the work product privilege to justify its invocation and that Petitioners have asserted no factual basis for the claim that the tape contains work product. Moreover, Intervenors contend that the tape was not prepared in anticipation of litigation. Intervenors also argue that there can be no expectation of privacy regarding the tape of the sort protected by the work product doctrine. Finally, Intervenors note that the lower court thoroughly considered this matter on the motions and memoranda of the parties, at two separate hearings, and set forth the reasons underlying its ruling during the hearings and in a written order.
7.	John P. Adams No. 00-071 Refuse 4-1 [Starcher, J.]	Petitioner in State of West Virginia ex rel. Chris A. Barger v. Edward Rudloff, No. 00-071, moves to stay execution of a return of fugitive pending appeal of circuit court denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was arrested on a fugitive warrant and subsequently a Governor's Warrant for charges pending in California. Petitioner avers that if he is returned to California, he will have no way to challenge the decision of the lower court on his habeas writ. Petitioner's habeas pleadings allege the Governor's Warrant and Requisition for the State of California are defective because they are not in the proper form. Petitioner argues that they lack the specificity required by West Virginia Code § 5-1-8(a) in that they fail to specify a date the crimes took place. The State argues substantial compliance in that the warrant on its face states the Governor of California has demanded by requisition Chris Barger, a fugitive from justice in California, who has taken refuge in West Virginia, and that said fugitive “stands charged with the crime of Petty Theft with Priors, committed in the County of Los Angeles in the said State of California.” Moreover, the State writes that there are several attachments to the warrant which give complete details of the crime charged.
8.	Leah Boggs No. 001836 Grant 5-0	Petitioner in Lucille Lewis v. Lucille Lewis, Administratrix, No. 001836, moves for an order staying or modifying lower court requiring petitioners to post appeal bond. The lower court approved a settlement of a wrongful death case. Thereafter, petitioner moved for a stay of execution of judgment which such motion is currently pending. Petitioner currently has a petition for appeal which has not yet been considered by this Court. The lower court ordered that the settlement previously reached between the administratrix and the defendants be enforced and that the petitioners be required to furnish an appeal bond in the amount of the settlement ($468,728.66). Petitioners state that such a bond would cost a non-refundable premium of at least $1,000. Petitioners state that the only issue on appeal relates to the manner in which the funds were distributed by the lower court but that there is no challenge with regard to the liability for payment of such funds. Petitioners argue that the only damage which could be suffered by the respondents in this appeal is a loss of interest on the proceeds which are being held by counsel for the administratrix. Petitioners suggest that the lower court order be vacated or, in the alternative, this Court reduce the amount of bond required to $23,436.43 which is the statutory interest, 10% for a period of six months.
9.	Charles Houdyschell, Jr. Nos. 26047, 26909, 26910, 27308, 27309, 27311, and 26911 Refuse 4-1 [Starcher, J.]	In several cases involving jail inmates claiming a constitutional and statutory right to be transferred to a Division of Corrections penal facility, Division moves to refer proceedings to a special master to develop discovery and a factual record. Division argues that changes made by the legislature are substantial and that factual development is needed to resolve the issue involving the requirement of programming and treatment to individuals for whom release is available. The Division states the new statutory provision appears more case-by-case specific. In the alternative to a referral to a special master, the Division asks the Court to allow a reasonable discovery schedule for the purpose of developing a factual record. One of the appellants opposes such motion and argues that the questions are purely legal issues and neither the statutes involved nor the constitutional issues require any factual development.