Court Opinion

ID: 9589348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:43:45.78999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:44.323911
License: Public Domain

McHUGH, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
This case has a long and tortuous history. It could be used in law school texts as *639an example of painful judicial delay. I find myself in the peculiar position of sitting in judgment on a case in which I am an appellate judge and in which I also was a trial judge. My uncomfortable role as an appellate judge in this case is maintained with the acquiescence of the parties. The matter is further complicated because the history of this case reveals that I was reversed on two occasions as a trial judge by a majority of the brethren with whom I now sit. Few judges have the distinction of being so involved in such a legal proceeding.
With my prefacing comments setting the stage, my reasoning for concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part, may be more clear. I take no issue with the syllabus points. I believe they are sound law and will give excellent guidance in the future. My disagreement lies in remanding this case to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. It is clear that Bright McCaus-land is entitled to be reinstated to his position with back pay. Only the amount remains in controversy. Because of the peculiar circumstances of this case, he should be paid the amount determined by the trial judge. Furthermore, my colleague on the trial bench inherited this case upon my movement to this Court. It is my desire that he not find this case “stuck to him” as it has been to me.
This case has been in the court system for eight years. I would put an end to it and affirm, in toto, the decision of the trial judge.
I am authorized to state that Justice McGRAW agrees with my conclusion that this matter should not be remanded to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County and Bright McCausland should be paid the amount of back pay determined by the trial judge.