# State Ex Rel. Cohen v. Manchin

> West Virginia Supreme Court · October 2, 1985 · 175 W. Va. 525

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9853640

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of West Virginia Ex Rel. Robert F. COHEN, Jr. v. A. James MANCHIN, Secretary of State of the State of West Virginia, William T. Brotherton, Jr., Candidate for the Office of Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, and Joseph P. Condry, Financial Agent for William T. Brotherton, Jr.
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 2, 1985
- **Citations:** 175 W. Va. 525; 336 S.E.2d 171
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by McHUGH
- **Judges:** Miller, McHugh, McGraw, Harshbarger
- **Cited by:** 65 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/9853640

## Opinion text

McHUGH, Chief Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
The proceeding before this Court, as with many original proceedings, is replete with factual disputes regarding the financial reporting provisions of article 8, chapter 3 of the West Virginia Code. Although the records in original proceedings before this Court have traditionally been limited, it is my opinion that this case should have been referred to a special master or commissioner for findings of fact as provided by Rule 14(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.
Of particular concern to me is the lack of a development of facts supporting the conclusions reached by the majority in sections III and IV. After adequate fact finding, the result may be the same, and if the facts support that result, I would concur. I do, however, caution the reader to beware of the precedential value of this case.
ORDER
Justice McGraw withdraws his dissenting opinion, previously filed herein, from publication by the West Publishing Company for the reason that the West Publishing Company has edited the same by refusing to publish said dissent in its entirety.*

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9853640. Public record. Not legal advice.