remanding based on trial court’s failure to recognize that Abbott was superseded by enactment of W.Va. Code § 56-1-1a
How later courts described this case
- remanding based on trial court’s failure to recognize that Abbott was superseded by enactment of W.Va. Code § 56-1-1a
- applying de novo review where, as here, petitioners asked this Court to decide whether the trial court "erroneously based its decision on the Abbott 1 case”
- describing West Virginia forum non con-veniens statute, which adopts test similar to that in Gulf Oil
- Prohibition is an appropriate remedy in a forum non conveniens dispute because the potential unfairness to a litigant in a pending action renders an appeal inadequate.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice KETCHUM,
concurring:
I agree that this ease should be remanded for the trial judge to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by West Virginia Code § 56-l-l(e).
My reading of the record, West Virginia Code § 56-1-1, and our case law lead me to believe, without any doubt, that the proper forum is Michigan. Nevertheless, the trial judge may have seen something I missed and should be allowed to make specific findings and conclusions before this Court rules.