Rowan v. McKnight, 19634

Decision Date01 April 1991
Docket NumberNo. 19634,19634
Citation403 S.E.2d 780,184 W.Va. 763
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
PartiesDella B. ROWAN and Everett L. Rowan, Individually and d/b/a Central West Virginia Mobile Home Sales, Inc., a West Virginia Corporation, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. William E. McKNIGHT, Defendant Below, Appellee.

Syllabus by the Court

"An assessment of three factors is ordinarily made in determining whether res judicata and collateral estoppel may be applied to a hearing body: (1) whether the body acts in a judicial capacity; (2) whether the parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matters in dispute; and (3) whether applying the doctrines is consistent with the express or implied policy in the legislation which created the body." Mellon-Stuart Co. v. Hall, 178 W.Va. 291, 359 S.E.2d 124 (1987).

Michael C. Farber, Sutton, for plaintiffs below, appellants.

David R. Rexroad, Rexroad & Rexroad, Buckhannon, for defendant below, appellee.

PER CURIAM:

The appellants, Della and Everett Rowan, appeal a final order of the Circuit Court of Upshur County, dated July 5, 1989, which found that certain facts of the case contained in the appellants' complaint against the appellee, William E. McKnight, had been previously ruled upon by the West Virginia Public Service Commission and therefore, were res judicata. The appellants contend that the circuit court erred in finding that the Public Service Commission's decision was res judicata. We agree, and we reverse the decision of the circuit court.

The appellee had obtained a certificate of convenience and necessity from the Public Service Commission to transport mobile homes throughout West Virginia. In July of 1985, the appellee agreed to transfer his certificate of convenience and necessity to the appellants for a payment of $40,000. The written agreement executed by the parties contained a covenant which provided that the appellee would not compete, either directly or indirectly, with the appellants in the transportation of mobile homes within the state of West Virginia on a contract basis.

Thereafter, the appellants believed that the appellee had violated the covenant not to compete by transporting certain mobile homes for the Lewis County Board of Education on a contract basis. On February 2, 1987, the appellants filed an informal complaint with the Public Service Commission alleging that the appellee had moved two mobile homes for the Lewis County Board of Education from Roanoke to Walkersville, West Virginia, without proper authority from the Public Service Commission. The matter was investigated by the Public Service Commission and in July of 1987, one of the Public Service Commission's investigators found that the appellee had not performed any transportation or any other activity which required a certificate from the Public Service Commission. 1

On June 30, 1987, the appellants filed a petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief with the circuit court. In its petition, the appellants asserted that the appellee had violated the covenant not to compete contained in the contract executed by the parties by transporting mobile homes for the Lewis County Board of Education. The appellants sought to enjoin the appellee from competing with them under the terms of their contractual agreement.

A hearing was held on June 9, 1989, at which time the circuit court found that the matters alleged by the appellants with respect to the issue of the transportation of mobile homes for the Lewis County Board of Education had been decided by the Public Service Commission, and determined that the issue should be dismissed. Another hearing was held on July 3, 1989, during which the appellants requested that the circuit court reconsider its dismissal of the issue. By order dated July 5, 1989, the circuit court denied the appellant's motion to reconsider 2 on the ground that the finding of the Public Service Commission was res judicata with respect to the issue of the transportation of mobile homes for the Lewis County Board of Education. It is from that order that the appellants now appeal.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the circuit court erred in determining that the Public Service Commission's finding that the appellee was not transporting mobile homes illegally was res judicata.

This Court has recognized that the doctrine of res judicata may be applied to quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies. Liller v. West Virginia Human Rights Commission, 180 W.Va. 433, 376 S.E.2d 639 (1988); Mellon-Stuart Co. v. Hall, 178 W.Va. 291, 359 S.E.2d 124 (1987). We explained in Liller that in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State v. McKinley
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • September 29, 2014
    ... ... Per curiam opinions, such as Rowan [v. McKnight, 403 S.E.2d 780, 184 W.Va. 763 (1991) ], are used to decide only the specific case ... ...
  • Central West Virginia Refuse, Inc. v. Public Service Com'n of West Virginia, 21750
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • December 13, 1993
    ... ...         See also Rowan v. McKnight, 184 W.Va. 763, 403 S.E.2d 780 (1991); Liller v. West Virginia Human Rights Comm'n, ... ...
  • Burton v. Burton
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 19, 2008
    ... ... For instance, the Lieving Court noted that this Court had included obiter dicta in Rowan v. McKnight, 184 W.Va. 763, 403 S.E.2d 780 (1991), indicating that motions to reconsider do not ... ...
  • Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Rowing
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • July 16, 1999
    ... ... of res judicata may be applied to quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies." Rowan v. McKnight, 184 W.Va. 763, 764, 403 S.E.2d 780, 781 (1991) (per curiam) (citing Liller v. West ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT