Opinion ID: 1318724
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: The parties have characterized this matter as an appeal from a circuit court order granting summary judgment in favor of C & O and denying WVP's motion to join a party under Rule 19. This Court's review of [a] circuit court's entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.  Syl. pt. 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994). Our review of a circuit court's Rule 19 determinations [is] for an abuse of discretion. To the extent that in its inquiry the [circuit] court decided a question of law, we review that determination de novo.  Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Comty. v. California, 547 F.3d 962, 969-70 (9th Cir.2008) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The application of the above review standards is contingent upon our resolution of a jurisdictional issue not raised by the parties. This Court has held that, [w]here neither party to an appeal raises, briefs, or argues a jurisdictional question presented, this Court has the inherent power and duty to determine unilaterally its authority to hear a particular case. Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court directly or indirectly where it is otherwise lacking. Syl. pt. 2, James M.B. v. Carolyn M., 193 W.Va. 289, 456 S.E.2d 16 (1995). The jurisdictional issue we will address concerns the finality of the order upon which this appeal is based.