Preview:

SER Elish v. Wilson
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 1993 Term ___________ No. 21752 ___________ STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. HERBERT ELISH, HARVEY L. SPERRY, WARREN E. BARTEL, DAVID M. GOULD, JAMES BRUHN, DAVID L. ROBERTSON, F. JAMES RECHIN, RICHARD F. SCHUBERT, GORDON C. HURLBERT, LAWRENCE M. ISAACS, IRVING BLUESTONE, THOMAS R. STURGES, JR., THOMAS W. EVANS, JOHN T. GILMORE, AND WEIRTON STEEL CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE RONALD E. WILSON, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HANCOCK COUNTY, LARRY G. GODICH, JOHN L. BIRD, RAYMOND A. SACRIPANTI, SR., SHERIDAN BUFFINGTON, THOMAS M. RODGERS, MARTIN A. REITTER, JO ANN BRANLETT, EDWARD A. GODICH, AND BARBARA J. WILSON, Respondents _______________________________________________________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION WRIT DENIED _______________________________________________________ Submitted: July 6, 1993 Filed: July 22, 1993 John H. Tinney K. Paul Davis Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for Petitioners Elish, Bartel, Evans and Gilmore Robert B. King James S. Arnold Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for Petitioners Sperry, Gould, Bruhn, Robertson, Rechin, Schubert, Hurlbert, Isaacs, Bluestone and Sturges Carl N. Frankovitch Arthur M. Recht Weirton, West Virginia Attorneys for Petitioner Weirton Steel Corporation Edward A. Zagula
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/21752.html[7/1/2013 8:24:19 PM]

William E. Watson David E. Khorey Robert Yahn Weirton, West Virginia Attorneys for the Respondents JUSTICE BROTHERTON delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE MILLER concurs and reserves the right to file a concurring opinion. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. "In determining whether to grant a rule to show cause in prohibition when a court is not acting in excess of its jurisdiction, this Court will look to the adequacy of other available remedies such as appeal and to the over-all economy of effort and money among litigants, lawyers and courts; however, this Court will use prohibition in this discretionary way to correct only substantial, clear-cut, legal errors plainly in contravention of a clear statutory, constitutional or common law mandate which may be resolved independently of any disputed facts and only in cases where there is a high probability that the trial will be completely reversed if the error is not corrected in advance." Syllabus point 1, Hinkle v. Black, 164 W.Va. 112, 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979). 2. The local law of the state of incorporation should be applied to determine who can bring a shareholder derivative suit. 3. The Employee Stock Ownership Plan participants are shareholders within the definition of the term found in the comments to

Download 21752.pdf

West Virginia Law