You are here

Opinions

The Southern District of West Virginia offers a database of opinions starting in the year 2001, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search to the right or sort using the drop-downs below.

United States of America v. Antoine Dericus Wilmore 10/10/2017
2:16-cr-00177

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Fifteen weeks ago, I rejected the proffered plea agreement in the case of United States v. Charles York Walker, Jr.1 after determining that it was not in the public interest. I must now decide whether, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to accept or reject the plea agreement between the defendant, Mr. Antoine Dericus Wilmore, and the government. As I noted in Walker, while Rule 11 gives defendants and prosecutors the ability to enter into plea agreements, it also obligates judges to accept or reject those agreements.2 Rule 11 is silent on what I should or may consider in my decision.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. Charles York Walker, Jr. 09/22/2017
2:16-cr-00174

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Defendant’s Motion for Recusal [ECF No. 57]. For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Richard Edwards, Jr. v. McElliotts Trucking, LLC, et al. 08/22/2017
3:16-cv-01879

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court is Defendant Cardinal Transport LLC’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony and Life Care Plan of Lisa Westfall. ECF No. 100. For the following reasons the Court DENIES the Motion.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
United States of America v. Shon Wayne Cobbs 08/18/2017
2:17-cr-00023

Memorandum Opinion and Order

On July 20, 2017, I sentenced the defendant, Shon Wayne Cobbs. During that hearing, I determined that the defendant’s prior unlawful wounding conviction under W. Va. Code § 61-2-9(a) constituted a prior conviction for a “crime of violence” under the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) §§ 2K2.1 and 4B1.2(a)(1). I further explain my reasoning herein.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
The County Commission of McDowell County v. McKesson Corporation, et al. 08/14/2017
1:17-cr-00946

Memorandum Opinion and Order

This civil action was filed in the Circuit Court of McDowell County, West Virginia, and removed to this court by the defendants who maintain that this court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to remand that is now before the court for decision.  (ECF No. 26). For reasons discussed below, the motion to remand is DENIED.

Author:
David A. Faber
Richard Edwards, Jr. v. McElliotts Trucking, LLC, et al. 08/02/2017
3:16-cv-01879

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court are Defendant Cardinal Transport’s Motion Summary Judgment, ECF No. 72, and Motion to Strike and Exclude Untimely Evidence, ECF No. 84. For the reasons explained in the following Memorandum Opinion the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motion for Summary Judgment, and DENIES the Motion to Strike.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
United States of America v. Charles York Walker, Jr. 06/06/2017
2:17-cr-00010

Memorandum Opinion and Order

The court must decide whether, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to accept or reject the plea agreement between the defendant, Mr. Charles York Walker, and the government. While Rule 11 gives defendants and prosecutors the ability to enter into plea agreements, it also obligates judges to accept or reject those agreements.1 Rule 11 is silent on what the court should or may consider in its decision.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. Brian D. Terry 03/16/2017
2:16-cv-00175

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the defendant’s Motion to Suppress [ECF No. 27]. The government filed its Response [ECF No. 33], and at the direction of the court, both parties provided supplemental briefing [ECF Nos. 40, 49, 50]. The matter is now ripe for decision. For the following reasons, the defendant’s Motion is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Terreski Mullins, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al. 02/23/2017
2:12-cv-02952

Memorandum Opinion and Order

On February 14, 2017, I directed the parties to submit simultaneous briefing regarding the contours of what an alternative, feasible design can be under West Virginia law. I asked the parties to cover this issue as broadly as possible, taking into consideration the multiple tort theories available to a plaintiff under West Virginia law. On February 20, 2017, the parties filed their respective briefs [ECF Nos. 1867 & 1868]. On February 21, 2017, the parties filed their respective responses [ECF Nos. 1872 & 1873]. This Order will discuss many of the legal arguments made by the parties in their briefing and at the February 22, 2017, final pretrial conference.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Terreski Mullins, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc., et al. 12/09/2016
2:12-cv-02952

Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Order re: Ethicon's Motion for Reconsideration)

Pending before the court is a Motion to Reconsider Alternative Design Ruling or, in the Alternative, Motion to Certify Question to West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals [ECF No. 819] filed by the defendants Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (collectively “Ethicon”). The plaintiffs filed a Response [ECF No. 903], and Ethicon filed a Reply [ECF No. 922]. For the reasons provided below, Ethicon’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED, and Ethicon’s alternative Motion to Certify Question is DENIED as moot. 

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin

Pages