# Eastham v. City of Huntington

> West Virginia Supreme Court · January 9, 2009 · 222 W. Va. 661

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9540049

## Case

- **Full name:** Jason EASTHAM, Plaintiff Below, Appellee v. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON, a Municipal Corporation, and David Felinton, Mayor for the City of Huntington, Defendants Below, Appellants
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 9, 2009
- **Citations:** 222 W. Va. 661; 671 S.E.2d 666
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Benjamin
- **Judges:** Benjamin
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9540049

## Opinion text

BENJAMIN, Justice,
concurring.
(Filed Jan. 9, 2009)
In view of the current statutory law of this state, and the absence of a sufficiently convincing constitutional argument to the contrary, the majority did not err in reaching the conclusion that the City of Huntington’s residency requirement ordinance is valid. However, I believe that this case presents an opportunity for the Legislature to give consideration to whether such arcane residency requirements as is in place in Huntington continue to be appropriate in a modern era. I question whether, from a policy standpoint, such requirements continue to be defensible.
Justice is defined by a court’s measured application of the rule of law. It should not be the ambition of judges to elevate their own personal policy preferences over the rule of law. When judges advance their own notions of what they believe the law should be rather than what the law is, such judges engage in a judicial activism which is disrespectful to our constitutional system of governance and which is ultimately destructive to public confidence in the judiciary. A judge’s positive disregard of the rule of law, no matter the excuse, reveals an arrogance unbefitting of this Court. Such behavior has no place in a judicial system which values precedent, stability, predictability and certainty.
Although I personally favor the freedom of the City of Huntington’s workers to live where they choose to live, I must acknowledge that my personal policy preference is not supported by the law applicable to this case. I therefore concur with the conclusion of the majority. I observe, however, that residency requirements may pose the potential for municipal liability when used as a political weapon to retaliate against municipal police and firefighter groups.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9540049. Public record. Not legal advice.