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.
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).
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:
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.
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)
" 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."
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."
[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.
[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.
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.