First, in Stuyvesant v. Preston Cty Comm'n, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff's decedent hung himself in the county jail. Suit was filed over two years after the death, but within two years of the family learning, according to the complaint, that the decedent had received medical care at the jail prior to his death. The court found there was no allegation that a wrongful act related to the medical care caused the death:
More specifically, as per the fourth part of the Bradshaw test, the appellant failed to make even the barest of allegations in his complaint, or in any of his subsequent filings below, “that [a] wrongful act, neglect or default of that person or entity [had] a causal relation to the decedent's death.” In that regard, the appellant's complaint did not allege, even upon information and belief, that the Sheriff fraudulently concealed or misrepresented material facts surrounding the death of Mr. Daft. Instead, the appellant states that the discovery of the invoice during the month after Mr. Daft's death, in and of itself, caused the appellant to “doubt the Sheriff's assertion that Mr. Daft committed suicide.” Such a broad and disconnected allegation is woefully insufficient to allow for the statute of limitations to be tolled in this case. Had the appellant alleged any causal connection or nexus between his perception of the evasive reaction by the Sheriff in response to questions about the invoice and Mr. Daft's subsequent death by hanging, the result of this case may have been different. However, that is not the situation before this Court. Thus, the circuit court did not commit error in finding that there was no factual basis to permit application of the discovery rule.
This case shows a focus on the exact allegations plead in the complaint (a la Twombly and Iqbal?) and on enforcement of the statute of limitations absent a showing which merits an exception.
Next, Timberline v. Herlan arises from a contractual squabble, and focuses on the black letter law of agency relationships, but nothing new here.
Huffman v. Goals Coal arises from the placement of a coal silo near a grade school, with the issue being whether it was within the area permitted by the DEP. Coal River Mountain Watch (“CRMW”) intervened in the case and argued the DEP and the Surface Mine Board could only consider the original maps submitted with the permit application, and could not consider any landmarks or other information, which would not allow the building of the silo. The Court emphasized that the case was not about where the silo should be built, but rather about simple statutory interpretation, under which DEP was entitled to consider markers and other evidence demonstrating the permitted area.
Finally, the Andreini case produced two separate opinions. Justice Ketchum concurred that declaring a mistrial after the verdict was improper, and with treating it as a new trial issue, but would reverse on the substantive issue of the comments by defense counsel, finding counsel "invited error" by failing to request a transcript of plaintiff's closing to which he claimed he was merely responding. Justice Workman stated that without the transcript, the court should have deferred to the trial judge's recollection.
No comments:
Post a Comment