UMWA by Trumka v. Kingdon
Decision Date | 17 October 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 16227,16227 |
Citation | 325 S.E.2d 120,174 W.Va. 330 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | UMWA by Richard L. TRUMKA, etc., et al. v. Arthur R. KINGDON, Judge, etc. and U.S. Steel Mining Co., a corp. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The general rule of statutory construction requires that a specific statute be given precedence over a general statute relating to the same subject matter where the two cannot be reconciled.
2. Under the provisions of W.Va.Code, 22-1-30(g), a party adversely affected by a final order issued pursuant to W.Va.Code, 22-1-30, is entitled to judicial review either in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County or in the circuit court of the county where he resides or does business.
Daniel F. Hedges, James M. Haviland, McIntyre, Haviland & Jordan, Charleston, Mary Lou Jordan and Michael H. Holland, General Counsel, UMWA, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
This original prohibition raises the question of whether the Circuit Court of Wyoming County has venue to hear an appeal of an administrative order issued under the State Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, W.Va.Code, 22-1-30. This section relates to an administrative withdrawal of a coal mine employee's mining certificate.
The relators are several officials of the United Mine Workers of America. Their contention is that the Circuit Court of Wyoming County is without venue because in the underlying suit filed before it, the members of the Board of Appeals of the Department of Mines, along with its director, were named as respondents. As a consequence, the relators contend that this is an action against State officers and a State agency and, under W.Va.Code, 14-2-2, the only proper venue is in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. 1 Respondents contend that venue is proper by reason of W.Va.Code, 22-1-30(g), which provides that judicial review is to be made under the Administrative Procedures Act. 2 Under this Act, judicial review of administrative decisions is not restricted to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.
The agency proceedings in this case involved a charge initiated against a general mine foreman employed by United States Steel Mining Company. The charge alleged that he had violated the provisions of W.Va.Code, 22-2-26, relating to roof control. It is not disputed that the administrative procedures for handling such a charge are controlled by W.Va.Code, 22-1-30. A hearing is held before the Board of Appeals of the Department of Mines. If the Board determines that the charge has been proven, it can suspend or revoke the individual's mining certificate. As previously noted, W.Va.Code, 22-1-30(g), provides that any person adversely affected by a final order issued by the Board is entitled to judicial review pursuant to W.Va.Code, 29A-5-4. 3 This section of our Administrative Procedures Act places venue either in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County or "in the circuit court of the county in which the petitioner ... resides or does business." 4
The relators argue with some logic that if administrative appeals are permitted to be brought in either the Circuit Court of Kanawha County or in the circuit court of the county in which the party adversely affected resides or does business, then this will increase the possibility of divergent opinions on similar issues. This would not occur if administrative appeals were centralized in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. However, we cannot ignore the clear option provided in W.Va.Code, 29A-5-4, by which the legislature presumably intended to enable the aggrieved party to litigate an adverse administrative ruling in a convenient forum, i.e., where he resides or does business. 5
There can be no question that the general venue provision relating to suits against State officials or agencies, contained in W.Va.Code, 14-2-2, must be deemed to yield in the face of a more specific enactment contained in W.Va.Code, 22-1-30(g), and its reference to W.Va.Code, 29A-5-4(b). This is the general rule of statutory construction that requires a specific statute to be given precedence over a general statute relating to the same subject matter where the two cannot be reconciled. State ex rel. Sahley v. Thompson 151 W.Va. 336, 340, 151 S.E.2d 870, 872 (1966), overruled on other grounds, State ex rel. Hill v. Smith, W.Va., 305 S.E.2d 771 (1983). We also spoke to this point in Hawkins v. Bare, 63 W.Va. 431, 436-37, 60 S.E. 391, 393 (1908):
See generally 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 51.05 (4th ed. 1973); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes § 257 (1974).
We do not see how it is possible to harmonize the general venue statute's requirement for a suit to be brought against a State officer or agency in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County with the Administrative Procedures Act's options of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County or where the aggrieved party resides or does business. 6 Furthermore, the result we have reached is completely consistent with the legislative intent as evidenced by another provision in the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, W.Va.Code, 22-1-18. This section is a part of the general administrative procedure for the Director's enforcement of the Act. 7 It authorizes a review of the Director's order in "the circuit court of the county in which the mine affected is located or in the circuit court of Kanawha County." 8
Therefore, we conclude that under the provisions of W.Va.Code, 22-1-30(g), a party adversely affected by a final order issued pursuant to W.Va.Code, 22-1-30, is entitled to judicial review either in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County or in the circuit court of the county where he resides or does business. Because the Circuit Court of Wyoming County does have venue, we dismiss the writ of prohibition.
Writ Dismissed.
1 The relevant portion of W.Va.Code, 14-2-2, states:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Whitlow v. Board of Educ. of Kanawha County
...over a general statute relating to the same subject matter where the two cannot be reconciled." Syllabus Point 1, UMWA by Trumka v. Kingdon, 174 W.Va. 330, 325 S.E.2d 120 (1984). 2. " ' " 'Where economic rights are concerned, we look to see whether the classification is a rational one based......
-
Winkler v. State School Bldg. Authority
...over a general statute relating to the same subject matter where the two cannot be reconciled." Syllabus Point 1, UMWA by Trumka v. Kingdon, 174 W.Va. 330, 325 S.E.2d 120 (1984). 3. A category of bonds that override the specific limitations contained in Sections 4 and 6 of Article X of the ......
-
Zimmerer v. Romano
...a general statute relating to the same subject matter where the two cannot be reconciled." Syllabus point 1, UMWA by Trumka v. Kingdon, 174 W.Va. 330, 325 S.E.2d 120 (1984). Ancil G. Ramey, Hannah B. Curry, Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, Charleston, WV, for Appellants, Ann Morgan Zimmerer and Gera......
-
Morris v. Painter, 29758.
...statute relating to the same subject matter where the two cannot be reconciled.'" (quoting Syl. pt. 1, UMWA by Trumka v. Kingdon, 174 W.Va. 330, 325 S.E.2d 120 (1984))). 18. Under the holding I advocate in this case, habeas relief would be available only after there has been an administrati......