CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals dismissed a case involving the city of Martinsburg and the Berkeley County Council as moot because the construction being argued in the case was already completed.
Justice John Hutchison delivered the court's opinion. Justice Bill Wooton concurred and authored a separate opinion.
In the appeal from Berkeley Circuit County, the parties asked the Supreme Court to examine a dispute between the city of Martinsburg and the Berkeley County Council in which the circuit court entered an injunction halting the city’s efforts to regulate the county’s excavation and construction of a parking lot on land owned by the county but located within the city’s boundaries.
The city appealed the injunction because it wanted to compel the county to comply with a municipal stormwater ordinance in its excavation and construction.
"However, the excavation and construction the City seeks to regulate has been completed by the County," Hutchison wrote. "Moreover, while the parties’ dispute seems to raise novel questions of law with a potential to arise again in the future, the City’s briefing fails to address the questions clearly and properly. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot."
The Supreme Court declined to review the complex issues raised because the city's briefs do not address the statutes that appeal to form the legal basis for the stormwater ordinance.
Hutchison wrote that while the court recognized that an appellate lawyer operated within the constraints of a client’s wishes and checkbook, those constraints do not obviate the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
"Because the legal issues implicated by the parties were not addressed in a manner compliant with Rule 10, we decline to address them," the opinion states.
Hutchison wrote that the Supreme Court is entitled to strict adherence to the Rules of Appellate Procedure and compliance with the rules is essential in the court's ability to carefully review and fairly decide cases.
"In summary, the dispute on appeal between the parties is moot," Hutchison wrote. "While the legal questions raised by the dispute are of great public significance, appear capable of repetition and may yet evade legal review, we refuse to address them in the form presented."
In his separate opinion, Wooton wrote that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion, he wrote separately and disagreed with the treatment of the briefing.
"Inasmuch as the legal issues have been rendered moot, it is both unnecessary and unedifying to belabor the perceived inadequacy of the briefing in the case," Wooton wrote. "The majority’s discussion in this regard stands in contrast to its handling of other cases frequently presented to this Court in which the briefing is decidedly underdeveloped or lacking in strict procedural compliance, yet little or no criticism is given."
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 21-0579