Court Opinion

ID: 9856064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:37:20.089765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:57.590907
License: Public Domain

BROTHERTON, Justice,
dissenting:
I concur with the majority’s opinion except the part which upholds the May 21, 1985, action of the Court releasing the list of names and addresses of the security guards to the general public. I must dissent to that action, not that had the question been before the Court on proper motion that it might have been the proper action.
None of the parties before this Court requested the release of the names and addresses of the security guards to the general public. In fact, all parties agreed that the names should be kept sealed and even executed a consent order to that effect. No one filed a Freedom of Information Act request for this information.
Despite the fact that no one requested the names, this Court precipitously released the list of names on its own motion. A universal maxim of law in this country is that the judiciary acts only on cases and controversies. See, e.g., Teller v. McCoy, 162 W.Va. 367, 396-97, 253 S.E.2d 114, 131 (1978) (Neely, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part.); W.Va. Const, art. 8 § 3. A court should not fashion relief on its own motion on matters not before the court. I, therefore, must dissent to this action.