State ex rel. West Virginia Dep't of Transp. v. Reed

• Decision Date: 10 February 2012
• Docket Number: Nos. 11–1358,11–1360.,s. 11–1358
• Parties: STATE of West Virginia ex rel. WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS, Petitioner v. Honorable Jeffrey B. REED, Judge of the Circuit Court of Wood County; Randall Rapp; Lloyd Pannell; and Robin Pannell, Respondents.andState of West Virginia ex rel. West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, Petitioner v. Honorable Jeffrey B. Reed, Judge of the Circuit Court of Wood County, and C. Matthew Jones, Respondents.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

724 S.E.2d 320

STATE of West Virginia ex rel. WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS, Petitioner

v.Honorable Jeffrey B. REED, Judge of the Circuit Court of Wood County; Randall Rapp; Lloyd Pannell; and Robin Pannell, Respondents.andState of West Virginia ex rel. West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, Petitioner

v.Honorable Jeffrey B. Reed, Judge of the Circuit Court of Wood County, and C. Matthew Jones, Respondents.

Nos. 11–1358

11–1360.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted Jan. 11, 2012.Decided Feb. 10, 2012.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A real property appraisal report generated in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 4601 and W. Va.Code § 54–3–1 et seq. , and its accompanying regulations, is not discoverable in a condemnation proceeding by a party who did not own or have any legally cognizable possessory interest in such real property. In view of this holding, the decision in State ex rel. West Virginia Department of Transportation v. Cookman, 219 W.Va. 601, 639 S.E.2d 693 (2006), is overruled in its entirety.

Leah R. Chappell, Adams, Fisher & Chappell, Ripley, WV, for Petitioner.

Robert L. Bays, Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, PLLC, Parkersburg, WV, for Respondents, Lloyd Pannell, Robin Pannell, and C. Matthew Jones.

William Crichton, Crichton & Crichton, Parkersburg, WV, Andrew C. Woofter, Parkersburg, WV, for Respondent, Randall Rapp.DAVIS, Justice:

This proceeding, brought under the original jurisdiction of this Court, involves two consolidated petitions for writs of prohibition filed by the West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways (hereinafter referred to as “DOH”). In both petitions, DOH seeks to have this Court prohibit enforcement of orders entered by the Circuit Court of Wood County in two condemnation proceedings. The orders challenged require DOH to turn over to the defendants, C. Matthew Jones and Lloyd and Robin Pannell, appraisal reports involving properties condemned by DOH for its South Mineral Wells project. DOH argues that the orders violate the confidentiality requirements for appraisals established by federal regulations. Mr. Jones and the Pannells argue that the circuit court's orders are consistent with this Court's decision in State ex rel. West Virginia Department of Transportation v. Cookman, 219 W.Va. 601, 639 S.E.2d 693 (2006). After a careful review of the briefs and record, and listening to the arguments of the parties, the writs prayed for are granted, and the decision in Cookman is expressly overruled in its entirety.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

DOH condemned numerous properties incident to the upgrade of the South Mineral Wells interchange on State Route 14, near its intersection with I–77 in Wood County.¹ Among the properties condemned was property owned by Mr. Jones. It appears that DOH condemned three separate tracts owned by Mr. Jones. The tracts included a Taco Bell, gas station/convenience store, parking area, and video lottery operation; the tracts involved 11,038 square feet for a controlled access right of way and a total of 5,884 feet for temporary construction easements. DOH also condemned property leased by the Pannells. The property leased by the Pannells was a Subway Sandwich Shop that was owned by Randall Rapp. The Pannell/Rapp property that was condemned involved 24,898 square feet for noncontrolled access right of way, 158 square feet for a temporary construction easement, and 2,808 square feet for a temporary structure removal easement.

Subsequent to DOH initiating separate condemnation proceedings against Mr. Jones and Pannell/Rapp, the parties engaged in discovery.² Mr. Jones served on DOH a discovery request seeking all appraisals that were prepared for the South Mineral Wells project. The Pannells also served a similar request. Eventually, Mr. Jones and the Pannells filed separate motions to compel DOH to turn over the appraisal information.³ After an apparent joint hearing on the motions to compel, the circuit court entered separate orders on September 19, 2011, granting the motions. The orders required DOH to deliver to Mr. Jones and the Pannells all appraisals that were prepared by any appraiser or expert for the South Mineral Wells project that DOH had designated as a witness in the condemnation proceedings. ⁴ Subsequent to the orders, DOH filed the instant petition for a writ of prohibition.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We have held that a writ of “[p]rohibition lies only to restrain inferior courts from proceeding in causes over which they have no jurisdiction, or, in which, having jurisdiction, they are exceeding their legitimate powers and may not be used as a substitute for writ of error, appeal or certiorari.” Syl. pt. 1, Crawford v. Taylor, 138 W.Va. 207, 75 S.E.2d 370 (1953). Accord Syl. pt. 1, Kristopher O. v. Mazzone, 227 W.Va. 184, 706 S.E.2d 381 (2011). In this proceeding, DOH does not contend that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction in issuing the orders. Instead, it argues that the circuit court exceeded its legitimate powers. The standard of review for this situation is set out in Syllabus point 4 of State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W.Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996):

In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the lower tribunal's order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether the lower tribunal's order is an oft repeated error or manifests persistent disregard for either procedural or substantive law; and (5) whether the lower tribunal's order raises new and important problems or issues of law of first impression. These factors are general guidelines that serve as a useful starting point for determining whether a discretionary writ of prohibition should issue. Although all five factors need not be satisfied, it is clear that the third factor, the existence of clear error as a matter of law, should be given substantial weight.

In light of these established factors, we proceed to consider the parties' arguments.

III.

DISCUSSION

To decide the case sub judice, we must consider the doctrine of stare decisis as well as our prior precedent.

A. Stare Decisis

The issue presented by DOH is whether appraisal reports of condemned properties of nonparties are discoverable in a condemnation proceeding. This issue requires the Court to revisit its recent decision in State ex rel. West Virginia Department of Transportation v. Cookman, 219 W.Va. 601, 639 S.E.2d 693. “[T]he doctrine of stare decisis requires this Court to follow its prior opinions.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rutherford, ––– W.Va. ––––, ––– S.E.2d ––––, –––– (2011) (Davis, J., concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part). In Syllabus point 2 of Dailey v. Bechtel Corp., 157 W.Va. 1023, 207 S.E.2d 169 (1974), we held that “[a]n appellate court should not overrule a previous decision recently rendered without evidence of changing conditions or serious judicial error in interpretation sufficient to compel deviation from the basic policy of the doctrine of stare decisis, which is to promote certainty, stability, and uniformity in the law.” See also In re Proposal to Incorporate Town of Chesapeake, 130 W.Va. 527, 536, 45 S.E.2d 113, 118 (1947) (“The doctrine of stare decisis rests upon the principle that law by which men are governed should be fixed, definite, and known, and that, when the law is declared by court of competent jurisdiction authorized to construe it, such declaration, in absence of palpable mistake or error, is itself evidence of the law until changed by competent authority.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)). Moreover,

Stare decisis ... is a matter of judicial policy.... It is a policy which promotes certainty, stability and uniformity in the law. It should be deviated from only when urgent reason requires deviation.... In the rare case when it clearly is apparent that an error has been made or that the application of an outmoded rule, due to changing conditions, results in injustice, deviation from that policy is warranted.

Woodrum v. Johnson, 210 W.Va. 762, 766 n. 8, 559 S.E.2d 908, 912 n. 8 (2001) (internal quotations and citations omitted). While “this Court is loathe to overturn a decision so recently rendered, it is preferable to do so where a prior decision was not a correct statement of law.” Murphy v. Eastern Am. Energy Corp., 224 W.Va. 95, 101, 680 S.E.2d 110, 116 (2009). As Justice Cleckley noted in State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995): “[A] precedent-creating opinion that contains no extensive analysis of an important issue is more vulnerable to being overruled than an opinion which demonstrates that the court was aware of conflicting decisions and gave at least some persuasive discussion as to why the old law must be changed.” Guthrie, 194 W.Va. at 679 n. 28, 461 S.E.2d at 185 n. 28.

As discussed below, the decision in Cookman failed to resolve the issue of the discoverability of federally-funded condemnation appraisal reports under the applicable federal law. “The omission unquestionably provides this Court with the special justification necessary for the departure from the doctrine of stare decisis.” Murphy, 224 W.Va. at 101, 680 S.E.2d at 116. See also State v. Mullens, 221 W.Va. 70, 91, 650 S.E.2d 169, 190 (2007) (“Our decision to depart from stare decisis is based upon a ‘serious judicial error’ in the Thompson opinion.” (footnote omitted)).

B. The Cookman Opinion

In the instant proceeding, the record shows that the circuit court relied upon the decision in State ex rel. West Virginia...