Opinion ID: 1342391
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of issuance of writ of prohibition

Text: The standard for the issuance of a writ of prohibition is set forth in W. Va.Code § 53-1-1 (1882): The writ of prohibition shall lie as a matter of right in all cases of usurpation and abuse of power, when the inferior court has not jurisdiction of the subject matter in controversy, or having such jurisdiction, exceeds its legitimate powers. In syllabus point 4 of State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W.Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996) we held: In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the lower tribunal's order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether the lower tribunal's order is an oft repeated error or manifests persistent disregard for either procedural or substantive law; and (5) whether the lower tribunal's order raises new and important problems or issues of law of first impression. These factors are general guidelines that serve as a useful starting point for determining whether a discretionary writ of prohibition should issue. Although all five factors need not be satisfied, it is clear that the third factor, the existence of clear error as a matter of law, should be given substantial weight. Id., Syl. Pt. 4. This Court has stated that ... prohibition ... against judges [is a] drastic and extraordinary remed[y] ... As [an] extraordinary remed[y], [it is] reserved for really extraordinary causes. State ex rel. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Canady, 194 W.Va. 431, 436, 460 S.E.2d 677, 682 (1995) (citations omitted); State ex rel. Tucker County Solid Waste Authority v. West Virginia Division of Labor, 222 W.Va. 588, 668 S.E.2d 217, 2008 WL 2523591 (2008). Thus, we have held that: 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. Id. at Syl. Pt. 2 ( citing Syllabus Point 1, Hinkle v. Black, 164 W.Va. 112, 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979)). In syllabus point 3, State ex rel. Shelton v. Burnside, 212 W.Va. 514, 575 S.E.2d 124 (2002), this Court recognized [i]n the absence of compelling evidence of irremediable prejudice, a writ of prohibition will not lie to bar trial based upon a judge's pretrial ruling on a matter of evidentiary admissibility. ( quoting Syl. Pt. 2, State ex rel. Williams v. Narick, 164 W.Va. 632, 264 S.E.2d 851 (1980)). A writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent a simple abuse of discretion by a trial court. Syl. Pt. 4, 212 W.Va. 514, 575 S.E.2d 124. The writ does not lie to correct `mere errors' and ... it cannot serve as a substitute for appeal, writ of error or certiorari. Narick, 164 W.Va. at 635, 264 S.E.2d at 854. This Court further stated in Burnside that: [t]here is a practical reason for not allowing challenges, by use of the writ of prohibition, to every pre-trial discretionary evidentiary ruling made by trial courts. Such use of the writ would effectively delay trials interminably while parties rushed to this Court for relief every time they disagree with a pre-trial ruling. The fact remains that [t]he piecemeal challenge of discretionary rulings through writs of prohibition does not facilitate the orderly administration of justice. Woodall, 156 W.Va. at 713, 195 S.E.2d at 721. Said another way, writs of prohibition should not be issued nor used for the purpose of appealing cases upon the installment plan. Wimberly v. Imel, 358 P.2d 231, 232 (Okla. Crim.App., 1961). 212 W.Va. at 519, 575 S.E.2d at 129. Guided by these principles, we proceed to consider the parties' arguments.