Shields v. Romine

27 Citing cases

  1. Tabb v. Jefferson Cnty. Comm'n

    No. 17-0095 (W. Va. Mar. 23, 2018)   Cited 3 times

    We disagree. "A court has inherent power to do all things that are reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction." Syl. Pt. 3, State ex rel. Richmond American Homes of West Virginia, Inc. v. Sanders, 226 W.Va. 103, 697 S.E.2d 139 (2010) (quoting Syl. Pt. 3, Shields v. Romine, 122 W.Va. 639, 13 S.E.2d 16 (1940)) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The county commission invoked the circuit court's inherent power and the court found that a sufficient basis existed, given petitioner's misconduct in this and six prior proceedings, to limit his right to initiate various proceedings (defined in the court's order) on his own behalf.

  2. University Commons Riverside Home Owners Ass'n v. University Commons Morgantown, LLC

    230 W. Va. 589 (W. Va. 2013)   Cited 8 times

    14 Am. Juris., Courts, section 171.” Syllabus Point 3, Shields v. Romine, 122 W.Va. 639, 13 S.E.2d 16 (1940).' Syllabus Point 1, State ex rel. Rees v. Hatcher, 214 W.Va. 746, 591 S.E.2d 304 (2003).

  3. Foster v. Sakhai

    210 W. Va. 716 (W. Va. 2001)   Cited 22 times
    Affirming admission of expert testimony by board certified neurosurgeon, although he had not operated on a patient for several years or performed the specific procedure at issue

    14 Am. Juris. Courts, Section 171." Syl. pt. 3, Shields v. Romine, 122 W. Va. 639, 13 S.E.2d 16 (1940). We have repeatedly recognized this inherent power of the courts, and noted its application in a variety of settings:

  4. Costanzo v. EMS U.S., Inc.

    Civil Action No. 5:16CV168 (N.D.W. Va. Sep. 21, 2018)

    There are judicially created exceptions. Daily Gazette Co., Inc. v. Canady, 175 W. Va. 249, 250, 332 S.E.2d 262, 263 (1985); Shields v. Romine, 122 W. Va. 639, 13 S.E.2d 16 (1940); Frazee Lumber Co. v. Haden, 156 W. Va. 844, 197 S.E.2d 634 (1973). There are generally recognized exceptions to the general rule in certain circumstances, including where: (1) a contract shifts attorney's fees; (2) parties create or preserve a common fund; (3) the substantial benefit doctrine applies; (4) a party attempts to enforce a final judgment through contempt proceedings; (5) there is evidence of bad faith.

  5. Keen v. Coleman

    No. 21-0144 (W. Va. May. 31, 2022)

    But we need not determine here whether suits filed before different judges in the same county fall within the rule's purview because courts also possess "inherent power to do all things that are reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction." Syl. Pt. 3, in part, Shields v. Romine, 122 W.Va. 639, 13 S.E.2d 16 (1940) (citation omitted)

  6. Smith v. Stockmeier Urethanes U.S.A., Inc.

    No. 19-0410 (W. Va. Oct. 6, 2021)

    " Syl. Pt. 3, Shields v. Romine, 122 W.Va. 639, 13 S.E.2d 16 (1940). Additionally, this Court has expressly found that "a trial court has inherent power to impose sanctions as a part of its obligation to conduct a fair and orderly trial."

  7. Rector v. Ross

    859 S.E.2d 295 (W. Va. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    Am. Juris., Courts, section 171." Syl. Pt. 3, Shields v. Romine , 122 W. Va. 639, 13 S.E.2d 16 (1940). Moreover, this Court has expressly held that "a trial court has inherent power to impose sanctions as a part of its obligation to conduct a fair and orderly trial."

  8. In re A.P.

    No. 18-0448 (W. Va. Apr. 12, 2019)

    [t]he doctrine of "inherent power" provides: "A court 'has inherent power to do all things that are reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction.'" Syllabus Point 3, Shields v. Romine, 122 W.Va. 639, 13 S.E.2d 16 (1940). The "inherent power" doctrine is "well recognized" in West Virginia.

  9. In re A.P.-1

    241 W. Va. 688 (W. Va. 2019)   Cited 34 times
    Stating that by reading the statutory provisions in pari materia, "an incarcerated parent can be adjudicated as having abandoned his or her child[ren] through evidence of the parent's inability to meet even the most minimal parental duties and responsibilities to the child[ren]."

    [t]he doctrine of "inherent power" provides: "A court ‘has inherent power to do all things that are reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction.’ " Syllabus Point 3, Shields v. Romine , 122 W.Va. 639, 13 S.E.2d 16 (1940). The "inherent power" doctrine is "well recognized" in West Virginia.

  10. Gravely v. Mullins

    No. 17-0298 (W. Va. Nov. 17, 2017)

    Moreover, "[a] court has inherent power to do all things that are reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction." Syl. Pt. 3, Richmond American Homes, 226 W.Va. at 105, 697 S.E.2d at 141 (quoting Syl. Pt. 3, Shields v. Romine, 122 W.Va. 639, 13 S.E.2d 16 (1940)) (internal quotations and citations omitted). On appeal, the parties dispute whether respondent complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 11(c)(1)(A) with regard to her motion for sanctions.