Casdorph v. Division of Motor Vehicles

West Virginia Court of Claims

Casdorph v. Division of Motor Vehicles

24 Ct. Cl. 120

CourtWest Virginia Court of Claims

DecidedApril 9, 2002

DocketCC-02-057

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Ct. Cl. 120 (Casdorph v. Division of Motor Vehicles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Casdorph v. Division of Motor Vehicles, 24 Ct. Cl. 120 (W. Va. Super. Ct. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted for decision based upon the allegations in the Notice of Claim and respondent's Answer.

Claimant Jared B. Casdorph seeks $70.00 for paying a fine when he was stopped by the WV State Police on January 21,2002, and his driver’s license check with respondent indicated that his license was suspended. He received the fine based upon the check on his driver’s license. Respondent had failed to remove the suspension from claimant’s records when his driver’s license had been reinstated on August 2, 2001. Claimant was required to pay the fine due to the inaccurate records inadvertently maintained by respondent.

In its Answer, respondent admits the validity of the claim as well as the amount, but the Court is aware that it does not have a fiscal method to pay the claim.

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award to claimant in the amount of $70.00.

Award of $70.00.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted for decision based upon the allegations in the Notice of Claim and respondent's Answer.

Claimant Jared B. Casdorph seeks $70.00 for paying a fine when he was stopped by the WV State Police on January 21,2002, and his driver’s license check with respondent indicated that his license was suspended. He received the fine based upon the check on his driver’s license. Respondent had failed to remove the suspension from claimant’s records when his driver’s license had been reinstated on August 2, 2001. Claimant was required to pay the fine due to the inaccurate records inadvertently maintained by respondent.

In its Answer, respondent admits the validity of the claim as well as the amount, but the Court is aware that it does not have a fiscal method to pay the claim.

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award to claimant in the amount of $70.00.

Award of $70.00.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Ct. Cl. 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casdorph-v-division-of-motor-vehicles-wvctcl-2002.