Opinion ID: 1394336
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Case Number 35299Mr. Kokochak

Text: David Kokochak (hereinafter Mr. Kokochak), the appellee herein and plaintiff below, owns a building in Chester, West Virginia. Mr. Kokochak wishes to lease this building to a tenant who operates licensed video lottery machines. However, because this building is less than 300 feet from a gas station, the building is not an approved location for a video lottery establishment because W. Va. C.S.R. § 179-7-2.2.c requires that a licensed limited video lottery establishment be at least three hundred feet from a business that sells petroleum products capable of being used as fuel in an internal combustion engine. In order to challenge the validity of § 179-7-2.2.c, Mr. Kokochak filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. By order entered August 4, 2009, the circuit court granted Mr. Kokochak's motion for summary judgment and determined that § 179-7-2.2.c is an invalid legislative rule. In rendering its ruling, the circuit court concluded it is clear that Rule 179-7-2.2[.]c does, in fact, regulate private conduct and the exercise of private rights or privileges and confers rights or privileges when it precludes businesses within three hundred feet of a business that sells petroleum products from being a licensed limited video lottery location. No such restriction was made by the legislature. Further, the unambiguous language of West Virginia Code § 29-22B-1201(a) does not give the respondent [the Commission] legislative authority to promulgate a rule relative to distances, but states only that the terminals can be placed only in licensed ... locations approved by the commission. Further, it is important to note that the West Virginia legislature did, in fact, specifically address the issue of location of limited video lottery retailers in West Virginia Code § 29-22B-1202. It specifically excludes certain locations. As argued by the Respondent in another context, if there is any ambiguity regarding the legislature's intent to exclude particular locations from its prohibition in this statute, the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies here. The specific mention (and exclusions) of certain location(s) implies that other locations would not be excluded. The exclusions are not to be accomplished by interpretive rule. This court finds that West Virginia Code of State Rules, Rule 179-7-2.2[.]c is in fact a legislative rule by definition, and not an interpretive rule. Because said rule was never authorized or approved by the state legislature, it is void and invalid. (Emphasis in original). From this adverse ruling, the Commission appeals to this Court.