Court Opinion

ID: 9577182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:32:33.192181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:04.787277
License: Public Domain

DAVIS, Chief Justice,
dissenting:1
For the reasons so eloquently expressed by Justice Cleckley in his separate opinion in State v. Hopkins, 192 W.Va. 483, 453 S.E.2d 317 (1994) (Cleckley, J., concurring, in part, and dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

. In respectfully dissenting from the Court’s decision in this case, I wish to clarify the apparent confusion amongst the bench and the bar of this State as to the propriety of a Justice-authored dissent to an Opinion of the Court rendered per curiam. Generally speaking, a per curiam decision denotes "an opinion of the whole court,” Black’s Law Dictionary 1136 (6th ed.1990) (defining "per curiam”), "in which the judges are all of one mind, and which is so clear that it is not considered necessary to elaborate it by an extended discussion,” 21 C.J.S. Courts § 170, at 208 (1990) (footnote omitted). Despite this presumed unanimity of opinion, a Justice retains his/her underlying obligation to ensure “that justice is accomplished, and it is within [his/her] powers and duties ... to take proper action in order to enforce the law and to promote justice.” 48A C.J.S. Judges § 59, at 642 (1981) (footnotes omitted). Accordingly, even though an Opinion of the Court may be delivered per curiam, it is proper for an individual Justice to dissent therefrom where he/she "explicit[ly] disagreed] . .. with the decision passed by the majority” of the Court in order to uphold his/her duty to accomplish justice. Black’s Law Dictionary 472 (defining "dissent”). This conclusion is consistent both with the practice of the United States Supreme Court and the trend of the Justices of this Court. See, e.g., Whitaker v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 514 U.S. 208, 115 S.Ct. 1446, 131 L.Ed.2d 324 (1995) (per curiam) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Brown, 511 U.S. 117, 114 S.Ct. 1359, 128 L.Ed.2d 33 (1994) (per curiam) (O’Connor, J., Rehnquist, C.J., and Kennedy, J., dissenting); Barnhart v. Redd 196 W.Va. 142, 469 S.E.2d 1 (1996) (per curiam) (McHugh, C.J., and Cleckley, J., dissenting); State v. Hottinger, 194 W.Va. 716, 461 S.E.2d 462 (1995) (per curiam) (Cleckley, J., concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part). Cf. Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U.S. 1, 5, 109 S.Ct. 202, 204, 102 L.Ed.2d 1, 6-7 (1988) (per curiam) (Marshall, J., dissenting) ("[T]he practice of summary disposition demonstrates insufficient respect ... for our own dissenting colleagues on this Court.”); Montana v. Hall, 481 U.S. 400, 409, 107 S.Ct. 1825, 1830, 95 L.Ed.2d 354, 363 (1987) (per curiam) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (”[S]ummary dispositions in many instances display insufficient respect for the views of dissenting colleagues on this Court.... 'Per curiam’ is a Latin phrase meaning '[b]y the court,’ which should distinguish an opinion of the whole Court from an opinion written by any one Justice. Our use of a ... per curiam opinion, over the dissent of [members of the Court,] ... to resolve the merits of a case ... is wrong. Such an opinion does not speak for the entire Court on a matter so clear that the Court can and should speak with one voice. Instead, it speaks for a majority of Justices who take it upon themselves to resolve the merits of a dispute....” (footnote omitted)).