State ex rel. Justice v. King

Decision Date24 November 2020
Docket NumberNo. 19-1132,19-1132
Citation852 S.E.2d 292
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
Parties STATE of West Virginia EX REL. James Conley JUSTICE, II, Governor of the State of West Virginia, Petitioner v. The Honorable Charles E. KING, Jr., Judge of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, and G. Isaac Sponaugle, III, Respondents
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Hutchison November 24, 2020

Michael W. Carey, David R. Pogue, Carey, Scott, Douglas & Kessler, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, George J. Terwilliger, III, McGuire Woods LLP, Washington, District of Columbia, Attorneys for Petitioner.

G. Isaac Sponaugle, III, SPONAUGLE & SPONAUGLE ATTORNEYS AT LAW, Franklin, West Virginia, Attorney for Respondent.

Jenkins, Acting Chief Justice:

This Court is being asked to stop the Circuit Court of Kanawha County from enforcing a constitutional provision requiring the Governor of West Virginia to reside at the seat of government1 during his or her term of office. Upon his inauguration, Petitioner, James Conley Justice, II, Governor of the State of West Virginia ("Governor Justice"), took an oath, in which he explicitly swore to "support the constitution" and to "faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Governor of the State of West Virginia." One of those duties that Governor Justice swore to uphold—a constitutional provision located at Section 1 of Article VII of the West Virginia Constitution —is a duty to "reside at the seat of government" during his term of office. However, Respondent, G. Isaac Sponaugle, III ("Mr. Sponaugle") alleges that Governor Justice is failing to uphold his constitutional duties because he refuses to comply with said provision.

This case was brought as a petition for a writ of prohibition2 under the original jurisdiction of this Court by Governor Justice. Before this Court, Governor Justice challenges the circuit court's ruling,3 and contends that (1) the circuit court is without jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus4 compelling him to reside in Charleston under the political question doctrine and corresponding separation of powers principles; and (2) the remedy of mandamus is not available to compel the Governor of the State of West Virginia to reside in Charleston because the circuit court's order denying the motion to dismiss is clearly erroneous as a matter of law. Mr. Sponaugle asserts the circuit court does have jurisdiction and has not exceeded its legitimate powers. Having considered the briefs submitted on appeal, the appendix record, the parties’ oral arguments, and the applicable legal authority, we find that the circuit court does have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus, and that Governor Justice fails to meet the standard for issuance of a writ of prohibition. Therefore, we deny Governor Justice's request for prohibitory relief.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 18, 2018, Mr. Sponaugle5 filed a petition for writ of mandamus against Governor Justice asking the Circuit Court of Kanawha County to order Governor Justice to reside at the seat of government during his term of office pursuant to Section 1 of Article VII of the West Virginia Constitution. Due to Mr. Sponaugle's failure to comply with the pre-suit requirements of West Virginia Code § 55-17-3(a)(1) (eff. 2008), the petition was ultimately dismissed by the circuit court. After the dismissal of his petition by the circuit court, Mr. Sponaugle filed a petition for writ of mandamus before this Court, again seeking a writ directing Governor Justice to reside at the seat of government. This Court refused to issue a rule to show cause,6 and, therefore, the writ sought by Mr. Sponaugle was denied.

On December 11, 2018, Mr. Sponaugle returned to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County and once again filed a petition for writ of mandamus directing Governor Justice to reside in Charleston. In his petition, Mr. Sponaugle contended that Governor Justice has not spent more than a "handful of nights" at the Governor's Mansion or at any other residence located within the State's seat of government, i.e. Charleston, since becoming Governor of the State of West Virginia. According to Mr. Sponaugle, Governor Justice has made consistent and repeated public remarks that he has not, is not, and will not reside in Charleston. Moreover, Mr. Sponaugle claimed that Governor Justice's failure to reside in Charleston has negatively impacted the efficient operations of state government.

In response, on February 19, 2019, Governor Justice filed a motion to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus and argued that (1) mandamus cannot be employed to prescribe the manner in which a government official shall act; (2) a writ prescribing the amount of time the governor must spend in Charleston is contrary to the political question doctrine and corresponding separation of powers principles; (3) mandamus is not available to compel a general course of conduct; and (4) other adequate and more appropriate remedies exist.

By order dated July 17, 2019, the circuit court denied Governor Justice's motion to dismiss. In doing so, the circuit court ruled that mandamus is available to compel Governor Justice to comply with the constitutional provision. However, the circuit court's order did not contain findings of fact or conclusions of law to support its decision. Thereafter, on July 29, 2019, Governor Justice filed a motion requesting that the circuit court certify questions to this Court and to stay all further proceedings. In the alternative, Governor Justice asked the circuit court to enter an order setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its decision to deny his motion to dismiss. Governor Justice stated that if the circuit court declined to certify questions, he intended to file a petition for writ of prohibition with this Court.

On October 21, 2019, the circuit court entered an order denying the motion to certify questions and granting the motion to stay further proceedings. Additionally, in the same order, the circuit court granted Governor Justice's motion for entry of an order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its denial of the motion to dismiss. However, the circuit court stopped short of making a determination as to whether the duty to reside is a discretionary or non-discretionary duty. After this order was entered, Governor Justice filed the instant petition for writ of prohibition in this Court to challenge the circuit court's denial of his motion to dismiss.

II.STANDARD FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT

Governor Justice brings this action seeking a writ of prohibition under this Court's original jurisdiction. This Court has held that "[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). See also Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Peacher v. Sencindiver , 160 W. Va. 314, 233 S.E.2d 425 (1977) ("A writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent a simple abuse of discretion by a trial court. It will only issue where the trial court has no jurisdiction or having such jurisdiction exceeds its legitimate powers. W. Va. Code , 53-1-1.").

When evaluating extraordinary writs, "this Court reserves the granting of such relief to ‘really extraordinary causes.’ State ex rel. Suriano v. Gaughan , 198 W. Va. 339, 345, 480 S.E.2d 548, 554 (1996) (internal quotations and citations omitted)." State ex rel. Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Nibert , 237 W. Va. 14, 19, 784 S.E.2d 713, 718 (2016). "Historically, we have limited our exercise of original jurisdiction in prohibition because it is an extraordinary remedy reserved for extraordinary cases. See State ex rel. West Virginia Div. of Natural Resources v. Cline , 200 W. Va. 101, 105, 488 S.E.2d 376, 380 (1997)." State ex rel. Bobrycki v. Hill , 202 W. Va. 335, 337, 504 S.E.2d 162, 164 (1998).

For this reason, this Court will grant a writ of prohibition

to correct only substantial, clear-cut, legal errors plainly in contravention of a clear statutory, constitutional, or common law mandate which may be resolved independently of any disputed facts and only in cases where there is a high probability that the trial will be completely reversed if the error is not corrected in advance.

Syl. pt. 1, in part, Hinkle v. Black , 164 W. Va. 112, 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State ex rel. Thornhill Grp., Inc. v. King , 233 W. Va. 564, 759 S.E.2d 795 (2014).

Finally, this Court set forth the standard for issuance of a writ of prohibition when it is alleged that a lower court has exceeded its legitimate authority:

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.

Syl. pt. 4, State ex rel....

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State ex rel. Troy Grp., Inc. v. Sims
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 24, 2020
    ... ... 20-0007 Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Submitted: September 2, 2020 Filed: November 20, 2020 Dissenting Opinion of Justice Hutchison November 24, 2020 Brian J. Moore, Kelsey Haught Parsons, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for the Petitioners ... ...
  • State ex rel. Smith v. Olejasz
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 19, 2021
    ... ... Jenkins, Chief Justice: 865 S.E.2d 823 Petitioner Scott R. Smith, Prosecuting Attorney for Ohio County ("the State"), invokes this Court's original jurisdiction, and ... Black , 164 W. Va. 112, 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State ex rel. Thornhill Grp., Inc. v. King , 233 W. Va. 564, 759 S.E.2d 795 (2014). Moreover, [i]n determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving ... ...
  • State ex rel. Smith v. Olejasz
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 19, 2021
    ... ... 4, State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger , 199 W.Va. 12, 483 ... S.E.2d 12 (1997) ... Jenkins, Chief Justice ... Petitioner ... Scott R. Smith, Prosecuting Attorney for Ohio County ... ("the State"), invokes this Court's original ... 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979), superseded by statute on ... other grounds as stated in State ex rel. Thornhill Grp., Inc ... v. King , 233 W.Va. 564, 759 S.E.2d 795 (2014) ... Moreover, ... [i]n determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of ... ...
  • State ex rel. Smith v. Olejasz
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 8, 2021
    ...in their courts, which includes the right to manage their trial docket."). [26] See State ex rel. Justice v. King, 244 W.Va. 225, 230, 852 S.E.2d 292, 297 (2020) (prohibition is "an extraordinary remedy reserved for extraordinary cases") (cleaned up). [27] Lewis, 188 W.Va. at 95, 422 S.E.2d......
  • 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