# Cooper v. Gwinn > West Virginia Supreme Court · September 3, 1982 · 171 W. Va. 245 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856014 ## Case - **Full name:** Mary Jane COOPER, Tahlia Bell, Twila Harris, Faye Hickman, Joann Scales, Patricia Jackson, Darleen Johnson, Sherry Mead, Connie Ray and Kathryn Fencil v. Philip J. GWINN, Warden, West Virginia State Prison for Women at Pence Springs; And W. Joseph McCoy, Commissioner, West Virginia Department of Corrections - **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court - **Decided:** September 3, 1982 - **Citations:** 171 W. Va. 245; 298 S.E.2d 781 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Miller - **Judges:** McGraw, Miller, Neely - **Cited by:** 86 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/9856014 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - 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 awar… ## Opinion text MILLER, Chief Justice, concurring: While I concur in the result reached in this case, I would have avoided the rather amorphous due process discussion embodied in Syllabus Points 1 and 2 and their companion textual discussion. A more appropriate analysis would be to take the mandatory provisions of W.Va. Code, 62-13-4 (1977), requiring the Department of Corrections to establish “a varied program of education for all inmates in all institutions within the department,” as well as industrial training programs, 1 and to *266 conclude under Hurley v. Allied Chemical Corp., 164 W.Va. 268 , 262 S.E.2d 757 (1980), that this statute provides a cause of action for its enforcement by the inmates. We established in Syllabus Point 1 of Hurley, supra, the following criteria for determining if a legislative act gives rise to a private cause of action: “The following is the appropriate test to determine when a State statute gives rise by implication to a private cause of action: (1) the plaintiff must be a member of the class for whose benefit the statute was enacted; (2) consideration must be given to legislative intent, express or implied, to determine whether a private cause of action was intended; (3) an analysis must be made of whether a private cause of action is consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme; and (4) such private cause of action must not intrude into an area delegated exclusively to the federal government.” See also Jenkins v. J.C. Penney Casualty Ins. Co., 167 W.Va. 597 , 280 S.E.2d 252 (1981). Certainly, where the petitioners, as here, are seeking through mandamus to enforce a mandatory legislative right, the situation is directly analogous to E.H. v. Matin, 168 W.Va. 248 , 284 S.E.2d 232 (1981), where we held that the provisions of W.Va. Code, 27-5-9 (1977), gave certain enforceable rights to inmates of our State mental institutions. In the present case we are also aided by the preliminary legislative statement found in W.Va.Code, 62-13-1, which declares that “[t]his article shall be liberally construed.” 2 . The salient provisions of W.Va.Code, 62-13-4, are: “To accomplish the purposes of this article, the commissioner (or the director of corrections management if one is appointed) shall: “a. Exercise general supervision over the administration of the institutions under the jurisdiction of the department; "b. Establish separate subdivisions, to be headed by deputy directors, of adult services, youth services, and other subdivisions as he deems advisable, which may be headed by the *266 same or different deputy directors, which said deputy directors must be graduates of an accredited college or university with a degree in sociology, psychology, social science or a related field; “c. Establish rules and regulations in writing governing all subdivisions and institutions within the department; "d. Establish an in-service training program for personnel of the department; “e. Classify the institutions of the department, varying according to such factors as security features, program, age and sex of inmates, physical stature or size, character of inmates; "f. Establish a system of classification of inmates, through a reception and examination procedure, and in each institution a classification committee and procedure for assignment of inmates within the programs of the institution; "g. Establish, maintain and direct a varied program of education for inmates in all institutions within the department; “h. Supervise the treatment, custody and discipline of all inmates and the maintenance of the institutions and their industries; "i. Establish a system of compensation for inmates of the correctional institutions of the State who perform good and satisfactory work either within the industrial program or in the servicing and maintenance of the correctional institutions or any other institutions or camps within the State. The commissioner (or the director, with the approval of the commissioner) may establish a graduated scale of compensation to be paid to inmates in accordance with their skill in industry.” . The full text of W.Va.Code, 62-13-1, is: “This article shall be liberally construed, to the end that persons committed to institutions of the State for crime or delinquency shall be afforded individual and group treatment to reestablish their ability to live peaceably and, consistent with the protection of the community, to release such individuals at the earliest possible date, and to establish a just, humane and efficient program, and to avoid duplication and waste of effort and money on the part of public and private agencies.” --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856014. Public record. Not legal advice.