Cunningham v. Sommerville
West Virginia Supreme Court
388 S.E. 2d. 301 (1989)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Paula Cunningham (plaintiff) was in-house counsel for Go-Mart, Inc. As a condition of her employment with Go-Mart, Cunningham was precluded from engaging in outside employment, and Cunningham had no separate law practice. Go-Mart’s personnel regulations required Cunningham to work at least 39 hours per week to maintain her medical and life-insurance coverage. The Circuit Court of Braxton and Clay Counties (the trial court) appointed Cunningham to represent 43 indigent criminal defendants charged with 75 crimes. The trial court denied Cunningham’s motion for relief from the appointment, finding that West Virginia Supreme Court precedent required Cunningham to accept the appointments by virtue of her possession of a license to practice law. Cunningham then sought a writ of prohibition against A. L. Sommerville and Danny Cline (respondents), two judges of the trial court, to preclude them from making the appointment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McHugh, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
