Title: State ex rel. WV Secondary Schools v. Hrko
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 30878
State: west-virginia
Issuer: west-virginia Supreme Court
Date: March 14, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2003 Term FILED March 14, 2003 No. 30878 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. THE WEST VIRGINIA SECONDARY SCHOOLS ACTIVITY COMMISSION, Petitioner, V. THE HONORABLE JOHN S. HRKO, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WYOMING COUNTY, AND JEREMY RAYMOND HEDINGER, Respondents. PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION WRIT DENIED Submitted: February 26, 2003 Filed: March 14, 2003 William R. Wooton The Wooten Law Firm Beckley, West Virginia Attorney for the Petitioner The opinion of the Court was delivered Per Curiam. Warren R. McGraw, II McGraw Law Offices Prosperity, West Virginia Attorney for the Respondents JUSTICE MCGRAW, deeming himself disqualified, did not participate in the decision of this case. JUDGE MURENSKY, sitting by temporary assignment. CHIEF JUSTICE STARCHER concurs and reserves the right to file a concurring opinion. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT “Whenanappealhasbeengrantedanditappears from the face of the record that itwasimprovidentlyawarded,thecasewillbedismissed.” Syllabus,Angelov.RodmanTrust, Inc., 161 W. Va. 408, 244 S.E.2d 321 (1978) (per curiam). i Per Curiam: TheWestVirginiaSecondarySchools Activity Commission (hereinafter “the SSAC”)seeksa writ of prohibition against the Honorable John S. Hrko, Judge of the Circuit Court of Wyoming County,based on aninjunctionheenteredon behalf of the respondent, Jeremy Raymond Hedinger (hereinafter “Mr. Hedinger”). Having reviewed the parties’ submissionsandheardoralargument,wedeny the writ. Further, we remand this case to the circuit court of Wyoming County for additional proceedings regarding the permanency of the injunction should either party seek to establish a meaningful record with respect thereto. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY We take our factsfrom the sparse record submitted to us by the parties.1 Mr. Hedinger was a senior member of the Wyoming East High School football team. On September20,2002, he was ejected from a game for allegedly punching an opposing player. He denies throwing the punches. 2 The SSAC suspended Mr. Hedinger from the next Wyoming Eastfootballgame,scheduledforSeptember27,2002, as required by W. Va. C.S.R. § 127-4- 3.7.3 (2002). Prior to September 27, 2002, however, Mr. Hedinger filed a complaint for a 1The only exhibits before us were submitted by the SSAC and consist of a “SPECIAL REPORT to the School Principal and the WVSSAC” and the injunction order from which this proceeding arises. 2Mr.Hedingersaysthatwhilehisejection was factually erroneous, this dispute was “not the emphasis of [his] claim in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County[.]” 1 temporaryrestrainingorder to allow him to play in that game. On September 26, 2002 Judge Hrko heard both the petition and the SSAC’s motion to dismiss. Judge Hrko issued an injunctionrequiring the SSAC to provide Mr. Hedinger some type of hearing before imposing theprospectivesuspension. Additionally, Judge Hrko ordered Mr. Hedinger be allowed to play in the September 27thgame. The SSAC then sought a writ of prohibition invoking this Court’s originaljurisdictionto prohibit Judge Hrko from enforcing the injunction. We granted a rule to show cause, but refused to stay the injunction. II. DISCUSSION “[T]herighttoprohibitionmustbeclearly shown before a petitioner is entitled to this extraordinary remedy.” Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Maynard, 190 W. Va. 113, 120, 437 S.E.2d227,284(1993). In the context of appeals we have said that “[w]hen an appeal has been grantedanditappearsfromthefaceoftherecordthatitwasimprovidently awarded, the case will be dismissed.” Syl., Angelo v. Rodman Trust, Inc., 161 W. Va. 408, 244 S.E.2d 321 (1978) (per curiam). We think this reasoning applies to the instant case. Thus, we find that the rule to show cause in this matter was improvidently granted. III. CONCLUSION The petition for a writ of prohibition is denied. This case is remanded for 2 additionalproceedings regarding the permanency of the injunction should either party seek to establish a meaningful record with respect thereto. Writ Denied. 3