Coffman v. U.S. Steel Mining Co.
This text of 363 S.E.2d 750 (Coffman v. U.S. Steel Mining Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Franklin Clay Coffman appeals the dismissal of his case by the Circuit Court of Kanawha County premised on his failure to file a note of argument pursuant to Rule 19 of the Local Rules of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County (local rules). We reverse.
Mr. Coffman had originally filed a safety discrimination complaint under W.Va. Code, 22A-1A-20, based on a claim that he was subject to substantial verbal abuse and threats by a supervisory employee when he filed a safety complaint. After the Coal Mine Board of Appeals rendered an adverse decision, he exercised his right to appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as a contested case pursuant to W.Va. Code, 29A-5-4. Under subsection (b) of this statute, he was required to file a petition within thirty days after receipt of notice of the final order from the involved agency.1
Turning to Local Rule 19,2 it is to be noted that the local rules were approved by this Court on July 22, 1960 and adopted by the Kanawha County Circuit Court on August 3, 1960. They were a result of the adoption of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure.3
It appears that Local Rule 19 evolved at the time when there were courts of record of limited jurisdiction and appeals could be taken from them to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.4 This procedure was codified in W.Va. Code, 58-4-1, et seq., and provided for an initial petition for a writ of error to the circuit court. W.Va. Code, 58-4-3. This petition was then reviewed and could be refused or granted. W.Va. Code, 58-4-7. If granted, it was then subject to full hearing. W.Va. Code, 58-4-15. It was in aid of this procedure that Rule 19 was fashioned.
We are fortified in this observation by the fact that Local Rule 20 relates to certified questions and refers specifically to W.Va. Code, 58-4-2, which dealt with certification of questions from courts of record of limited jurisdiction. Moreover, Local Rule 21 sets out the form of appellate brief once the appeal has been granted by the circuit court. Significantly, under this Rule the failure to file a brief does not result in a dismissal, but only postpones the submission of the case.5
[675]*675It is clear that review of administrative proceedings under the APA was not contemplated by these local rules since the APA was not adopted until 1964.6 We have also stated that where an administrative agency is exempt from the APA, then certiorari is the proper method of review according to Syllabus Point 2 of State ex rel. Ginsberg v. Watt, 168 W.Va. 503, 285 S.E.2d 367 (1981):
“A writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County is the proper means for obtaining judicial review of a decision made by a state agency not covered by the Administrative Procedure Act.”
See also, Syllabus Point 3, Board of Education v. MacQueen, 174 W.Va. 338, 325 S.E.2d 355 (1984).
We, therefore, conclude .that an administrative agency appeal is not subject to Local Rule 19 of the Kanawha County Circuit Court and, therefore, the court erred in dismissing the appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County is reversed and the case is remanded. Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
363 S.E.2d 750, 178 W. Va. 673, 1987 W. Va. LEXIS 650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coffman-v-us-steel-mining-co-wva-1987.