The state Supreme Court voted 5-0 on Thursday to reconsider its decision to dismiss a multimillion-dollar verdict against Massey Energy, after questions about the ability of several justices to decide the case fairly.
The state Supreme Court voted 5-0 on Thursday to reconsider its decision to dismiss a multimillion-dollar verdict against Massey Energy, after questions about the ability of several justices to decide the case fairly.
The court will rehear the case on March 12, and reconsider its 3-2 decision from Nov. 21 that overturned the $76.3 million verdict for Harman Mining Corp. and its owner, Hugh M. Caperton.
Chief Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard was part of the original decision, but recused himself from the case last week after Caperton's lawyers filed photographs showing Maynard vacationing on the French Riviera with Massey chief executive Donald L. Blankenship. The time stamp on the photos indicates they were taken in July 2006, when the Harman case was pending before the Supreme Court.
Justice Robin Davis, who originally voted with Maynard and Justice Brent Benjamin to overturn the Boone Circuit Court verdict, said Thursday the case should be reheard because of "Maynard's recusal of himself from this case."
Davis, quoted in the court's statement, cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that states, "We are aware of no case ... permitting a court's decision to stand when a disqualified judge casts the deciding vote."
Circuit Judge Donald H. Cookman of Hampshire County replaced Maynard in Thursday's discussions and vote. He was chosen to hear the case by Benjamin, who is acting chief justice in Maynard's absence.
Justice Larry Starcher, who originally voted with Justice Joseph Albright to affirm the Harman verdict, said Thursday, "I voted to rehear this case because I believe the earlier majority opinion was in error."
Lawyers for Caperton and Harman had also asked Benjamin to recuse himself from the case because Blankenship spent more than $3 million to help get Benjamin elected in 2004. Benjamin declined to recuse himself last Friday.
Starcher, according to Thursday's order, said he wished "other matters" could have been thoroughly discussed before a rehearing, including his "dislike for the way individual money was spent in the last Supreme Court election" by Blankenship on behalf of Benjamin.
Lawyers for Massey had asked Starcher to recuse himself, because of public statements he has made about Blankenship, something Starcher noted Thursday.
The state Supreme Court voted 5-0 on Thursday to reconsider its decision to dismiss a multimillion-dollar verdict against Massey Energy, after questions about the ability of several justices to decide the case fairly.
The court will rehear the case on March 12, and reconsider its 3-2 decision from Nov. 21 that overturned the $76.3 million verdict for Harman Mining Corp. and its owner, Hugh M. Caperton.
Chief Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard was part of the original decision, but recused himself from the case last week after Caperton's lawyers filed photographs showing Maynard vacationing on the French Riviera with Massey chief executive Donald L. Blankenship. The time stamp on the photos indicates they were taken in July 2006, when the Harman case was pending before the Supreme Court.
Justice Robin Davis, who originally voted with Maynard and Justice Brent Benjamin to overturn the Boone Circuit Court verdict, said Thursday the case should be reheard because of "Maynard's recusal of himself from this case."
Davis, quoted in the court's statement, cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that states, "We are aware of no case ... permitting a court's decision to stand when a disqualified judge casts the deciding vote."
Circuit Judge Donald H. Cookman of Hampshire County replaced Maynard in Thursday's discussions and vote. He was chosen to hear the case by Benjamin, who is acting chief justice in Maynard's absence.
Justice Larry Starcher, who originally voted with Justice Joseph Albright to affirm the Harman verdict, said Thursday, "I voted to rehear this case because I believe the earlier majority opinion was in error."
Lawyers for Caperton and Harman had also asked Benjamin to recuse himself from the case because Blankenship spent more than $3 million to help get Benjamin elected in 2004. Benjamin declined to recuse himself last Friday.
Starcher, according to Thursday's order, said he wished "other matters" could have been thoroughly discussed before a rehearing, including his "dislike for the way individual money was spent in the last Supreme Court election" by Blankenship on behalf of Benjamin.
Lawyers for Massey had asked Starcher to recuse himself, because of public statements he has made about Blankenship, something Starcher noted Thursday.
In Thursday's order, he noted his neutrality was questioned in an earlier motion where Massey asked him to recuse himself because of public statements criticizing the company.
"My language should have been more temperate, I admit," he said of his comments about Blankenship. "But I can separate that opinion from my understanding of the law."
He noted Benjamin "has also been criticized for sitting on this case; and he, I am sure, also sincerely believes he can separate that fact from his understanding of the applicable law....
"Nevertheless, I would have preferred that we both take time to consider whether it would be better to step aside," Starcher said.
Massey Energy issued a statement on Thursday that said, "We respect the court's decision to take another look at this case. We remain confident, however, that the court will ultimately uphold its prior decision.
"While there has been a great deal of media attention regarding this case, nothing has changed the facts or the law that the court will consider in reaching its final decision."
In a joint release on Thursday, Caperton and Harman stated, "The question now is whether the court will use the rehearing to deliver justice by affirming the jury's verdict.
"The court would gain great credibility, public confidence in the judicial system would be restored, and the litigants would take great comfort that justice will be done if Justice Benjamin and Justice Starcher jointly agreed to step down from this case, especially in light of the language attributed to Justice Starcher in the most recent order."
Thursday's order also directed both parties to file supplemental briefs within 20 days of receiving Thursday's order. Both parties then get 10 days to respond to the supplemental briefs filed by the other side.
To contact staff writer Paul J. Nyden, use e-mail or call 348-5164.
Post a comment