Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
September 2009 Term

No. 34745

FILED November 18, 2009
released at 3:00 p.m.
RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA


L.H. JONES EQUIPMENT COMPANY, a West Virginia corporation,
Plaintiff,
V.
SWENSON SPREADER LLC,
Defendant,
______________________________________________________ Upon Certified Question from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia
The Honorable Irene M. Keeley, Judge
Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-109
CERTIFIED QUESTION ANSWERED
_____________________________________________________ Submitted: October 7, 2009
Filed: November 18, 2008
Amy M. Smith, Esquire Christi R. Stover, Esquire Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC Morgantown, West Virginia
Attorney for Plaintiff Sandra K. Law, Esquire
Schader, Byrd & Companion, PLLC
Wheeling, West Virginia
W. Michael Hanna, Esquire
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey Cleveland, Ohio Attorneys for Defendant

CHIEF JUSTICE BENJAMIN delivered the opinion of the Court. JUSTICE KETCHUM dissents and reserves the right to file a dissenting opinion.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT


1.

" `A de novo standard is applied by this [C] urt in addressing the legal issues o

presented by a certified questions from a fede ral or appellate court.' Syl. Pt. 1 , Light v. Allstate Ins. Co., 203 W. Va. 27, 506 S.E.2d 64 1998)." Syllabus Point 2,Aikens v. Debow, ( 208 W. Va. 486, 541 S.E.2d 576 (2000).

2.

"It is presumed the legislature had a purpose in the use of every word, phrase

and clause found in a statute and intended the terms so used to be effective, wherefore an interpretation of a statute which gives a wo rd, phrase or clause thereof no function to perform, or makes it, in effect, a mere repetition of another word, phrase or clause thereof must be rejected as being unsound, if it be possible so to construe the statute as a whole, as to make all of its parts operative and effective." Syllabus point 7, Ex parte Watson, 82 W. Va. 201, 95 S.E. 648 (1918).

3.

" ` "The primary object in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect

to the intent of the legislature." Syllabus Point 1, Smith v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 159 W. Va. 108, 219 S. E.2d 361 (1975). ' Syl labus point 2, Anderson v. Wood, 204 W. Va. 558, 514 S.E.2d 408 (1999)." Sy llabus point 2,Expedited Transportation Systems, Inc., v. Vieweg, 207 W. Va. 90, 529 S.E.2d 110 (2000).

i

4.

"In construing an ambiguity in a statute, Court will exam the title to the this ine

Act of the Legislature as a means of ascert aining the legislative intent, and the overall purpose of the legisla tion. Syl. Pt .2,City of Huntington v. State Water Comm'n, 135 W. Va. 568, 64 S.E.2d 225 (1951)."

5.

"Where the language of a statute is clear and without ambiguity the plain

meaning is to be accepted without resorting to the rules of interpretation." Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Elder, 152 W. Va. 571, 165 S.E.2d 108 (1968).

6.

The West Virginia Farm Equipment Dealer Contract Act is not limited in its scope

and application to "dealers" a "suppliers" of "farm equipment" only, as m nd ight mistakenly be inferred by reference only to the Act's statut short title. Rather,the protections of the ory Act extend to "dealers" and "suppliers" of "farm, construction, industrial or outdoor power equipment or any combination of the foregoing," as provided in the definition of "dealer," found in the Act at West Virginia Code

Download 34745.pdf

West Virginia Law