# Tony Coffman v. Nicholas County Commission

> West Virginia Supreme Court · February 9, 2017 · 238 W. Va. 482

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9872127

## Case

- **Full name:** Tony COFFMAN, Robert Marsh, Mary Marsh, James Marsh and Marilyn Marsh, Plaintiffs Below, Petitioners v. NICHOLAS COUNTY COMMISSION and Its Members, Dr. Yancy S. Short, M.D.; John R. Miller; And Kenneth Altizer, Individually and in Their Official Capacities, and Checks Auto Parts, LLC, Defendants Below, Respondents
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 9, 2017
- **Citations:** 238 W. Va. 482; 796 S.E.2d 591; 2017 W. Va. LEXIS 63
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Workman
- **Judges:** Davis, Ketchum, Workman
- **Nature of suit:** Tort, Contract, and Real Property
- **Cited by:** 2 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/9872127

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing the available statutory annexation mechanisms

## Opinion text

WORKMAN, J.,
concurring:
I concur in the majority’s affirm of the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment on behalf of respondents and agree that the annexation by minor boundary adjustment was proper. I write separately, however, to underscore that the crux of petitioners’ grievance appears to be, not with the annexation, but with the purported use of the subject property. Given the state of record, it would appear that petitioners have residual opportunities to challenge the use of the property, to whatever extent such issues are properly presented below and/or become ripe for adjudication.
As discussed by the majority, the subject property appears to not be properly zoned, as yet, for the operation of the “salvage yard” at issue. Moreover, the circuit court’s order did not address the issues of statutory exceptions to licensing requirements, the interplay of the City of Summersville ordinance, and public nuisance. These matters were held in abeyance and the only issue presented to this Court pertains to the annexation by minor boundary adjustment, which was made fully and finally appealable by the circuit court’s order. The circuit court’s order suggests that significant factual development remains as to matters not encompassed within this appeal and which appear to more squarely vindicate petitioners’ grievances.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth here-inabove, I respectfully concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9872127. Public record. Not legal advice.