Phares v. Ritchie
| Citation | 219 S.E.2d 698,159 W.Va. 156 |
| Decision Date | 25 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. CC894,CC894 |
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
| Parties | Dewey P. PHARES et al. v. William S. RITCHIE, Jr., as West Virginia Commissioner of Highways. |
Syllabus by the Court
An action in mandamus to compel the State Commissioner of Highways to maintain a road does not fall within the contemplation of W.Va.Code, 14--2--2(b) (1974) relating to 'any proceeding for injunctive or mandamus relief involving the taking, damage or title to real property' which establishes proper venue in the 'circuit court of the county in which the real property affected is situate' and therefore the only proper venue for the action in this case is the Circuit Court of Kanawha County as set forth in W.Va.Code, 14--2--2(a) (1974).
William M. Karr, III, Elkins, for plaintiffs.
Hershel R. Hark, Legal Div., Dept. of Highways, Charleston, for defendant.
This case presents one issue and one issue only with regard to proper venue in actions brought against State officials. In January 1975 the appellees filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Randolph County praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to require the appellant, Commissioner of Highways William S. Ritchie, Jr., to maintain a public road in the New Interest District of Randolph County, which had been maintained as a state road until some time in 1974. Appellees alleged they all owned land abutting the road and that they would suffer irreparable damage to the value of their property unless the defendant were compelled to maintain the road. The Circuit Court held that venue was proper in Randolph County, predicating that holding on W.Va.Code, 14--2--2(b) (1974). As this Court finds that this was not a mandamus action to require the institution of condemnation proceedings as contemplated by W.Va.Code, 14--2--2(b) (1974), we hold that the rule to show cause issued by the Circuit Court of Randolph County was improvidently awarded. 1
The provision establishing proper venue with regard to actions brought against State officials is set forth in W.Va.Code, 14--2--2(a) (1974) which states:
'VENUE FOR CERTAIN SUITS AND ACTIONS.
(a) The following proceedings shall be brought and prosecuted only in the circuit court of Kanawha county:
1. Any suit in which the governor, any other state officer, or a state agency is made a party defendant, except as garnishee or suggestee.
2. Any suit attempting to enjoin or otherwise suspend or affect a judgment or decree on behalf of the State obtained in any circuit court.
(b) Any proceeding for injunctive or mandamus relief involving the taking, damage or title to real property may be brought and presented in the circuit court of the county in which the real...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shobe v. Latimer
...by the constitutional immunity of the state from suit under section 35, article VI of the Constitution of the State.11 Phares v. Ritchie, W.Va., 219 S.E.2d 698 (1975), involved a mandamus action instituted in the Randolph County Circuit Court by citizens owning real property abutting a road......
- Bennett v. Coffman
-
State ex rel. Ritchie v. Triplett
...of the county in which the real property affected is situate." Between the 1974 and 1976 amendments, the Court held in Phares v. Ritchie, W.Va., 219 S.E.2d 698 (1975), that irrespective of the language of the 1974 amendment adding Section 2(b) to the statute, venue for actions of landowners......
-
Vance v. Ritchie
...W.Va.Acts ch. 25. Between the 1974 and 1976 amendments, this Court construed W.Va.Code, 14-2-2(b), as amended, in Phares v. Ritchie, 159 W.Va. 156, 219 S.E.2d 698 (1975). In Phares, this Court concluded that in a mandamus action to require reinstitution of state maintenance of a road, venue......