Opinion ID: 1343045
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Jury Duty

Text: The second public interest to consider in the Gilbert matrix is the imposition of jury duty. Tsapis, 184 W.Va. at 234, 400 S.E.2d at 242. In the final order, the circuit court concluded that it is far more appropriate to have the citizens of Michigan shoulder the burden of jury duty. The circuit court said [i]t would be unjust and unreasonable to impose jury duty on the citizens of Kanawha County, who most likely would be required to spend many days trying to determine complicated insurance and environmental issues for a piece of property located in Michigan. Thus, the circuit court found [t]he imposition of jury duty on local residents favors Michigan. Cannelton asserts that the circuit court erred by finding the imposition of jury duty upon residents of West Virginia would be unjust and unreasonable[.] Cannelton claims jury duty is a civic responsibility in such cases. We do not dispute that jury duty is a civic responsibility; however, the standard with regard to this interest is  `the burden of imposing jury duty upon the citizens of a community which has no or very little relation to the litigation[.]'  Tsapis, 184 W.Va. at 234, 400 S.E.2d at 242. (Citations omitted). In light of our decision as to West Virginia's relationship to the litigation, see Section III(B)(3) and (4), infra, we find the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in deciding the burden of jury duty rests more appropriately on the citizens of Michigan. 3.