# Hechler v. Casey

> West Virginia Supreme Court · August 8, 1985 · 175 W. Va. 434

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856064

## Case

- **Full name:** Ken HECHLER, as Secretary of State, State of West Virginia v. the Honorable Patrick CASEY, as Judge of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, and Southeastern Security & Investigations, Inc.
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 8, 1985
- **Citations:** 175 W. Va. 434; 333 S.E.2d 799
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brotherton
- **Judges:** McHugh, Brotherton
- **Cited by:** 71 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/9856064

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that investigatory records portion of FOIA does not include "information generated pursuant to routine administration or oversight, but is limited to information compiled as part of an inquiry into specific suspected violations of the law"
- noting that statute authorizing an award of costs in mandamus and prohibition cases was superseded by the Rules of Appellate Procedure with regards to an award of costs to the State in this Court

## Opinion text

BROTHERTON, Justice,
dissenting:
I concur with the majority’s opinion except the part which upholds the May 21, 1985, action of the Court releasing the list of names and addresses of the security guards to the general public. I must dissent to that action, not that had the question been before the Court on proper motion that it might have been the proper action.
None of the parties before this Court requested the release of the names and addresses of the security guards to the general public. In fact, all parties agreed that the names should be kept sealed and even executed a consent order to that effect. No one filed a Freedom of Information Act request for this information.
Despite the fact that no one requested the names, this Court precipitously released the list of names on its own motion. A universal maxim of law in this country is that the judiciary acts only on cases and controversies. See, e.g., Teller v. McCoy, 162 W.Va. 367, 396-97 , 253 S.E.2d 114, 131 (1978) (Neely, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part.); W.Va. Const, art. 8 § 3. A court should not fashion relief on its own motion on matters not before the court. I, therefore, must dissent to this action.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856064. Public record. Not legal advice.