holding that trial court's order of binding arbitration regarding child support was void ab initio because "while provisions of a valid arbitration award concerning alimony may by agreement be made binding on the parties and nonmodi-fiable by the courts, provisions of the award concerning custody and child support continue to be within the equrt's jurisdiction and are modifiable"
How later courts described this case
- holding that trial court's order of binding arbitration regarding child support was void ab initio because "while provisions of a valid arbitration award concerning alimony may by agreement be made binding on the parties and nonmodi-fiable by the courts, provisions of the award concerning custody and child support continue to be within the equrt's jurisdiction and are modifiable"
- “Inmates incarcerated in West Virginia state prisons have a right to rehabilitation established by W. Va.Code §§ 62-13-1 and 62-13-4 (Cum. Supp.1980), and enforceable through the substantive due process mandate of article 3, section 10 of the West Virginia Constitution.”
- “rehabilitation is the primary purpose of confinement in state prisons ... ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NEELY, Justice,
concurring:
I concur only to point out that three quarters of the majority opinion in this case is unnecessary dicta. Since the bar of this State take the writings of this Court seriously, I consider it a disservice to the bar to write a broad treatise on government which serves no function germane to the case. Furthermore, the treatise is entirely inaccurate in that it paints a picture in black and white without taking into consideration real life’s mottled shades of gray. Treatises are almost always about black and white while real cases and controversies are uniformly about shades of gray.
While the petitioners in this case have a right to humane treatment under the statutes cited by the majority opinion, that issue alone decides the case. Furthermore, it is entirely proper to transfer the case to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County to develop a plan that will meet the Legislature’s mandates as set forth in the statutes. Additional discussion is surplusage.
Finally, I would disassociate myself from any language that addresses how this case will be received by the public in general. This Court’s job is to enforce the law; the citizens of this State have deliberately accorded to elected judges very long terms for the specific purpose of insulating them from the pressure of public opinion. I find that the entire judicial process is disparaged when the courts apologize for applying the law impartially.