The West Virginia Supreme Court recently issued a dissenting opinion in the case of Alexander Fleming, Carole Carter, Carol Gallant, Barbara Humes, and Benjamin Buckley v. Matt Herridge, Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Commerce, and Todd Hooker, Acting Executive Director of the West Virginia Division of Economic Development (Docket No. 24-373). The dissent, written by Chief Justice Bunn, emphasizes a critical issue regarding the standing of the petitioners, which could have significant implications for future legal cases in the state.

This dissent is particularly important as it raises questions about whether the petitioners have the right to bring their case to court. Standing is a legal principle that determines whether a party has the right to sue based on their stake in the outcome. If a party lacks standing, the court may not have the authority to hear the case.

The dissenting opinion was filed on November 13, 2026, and highlights that the West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) had previously noted concerns about the petitioners' standing in its ruling. However, neither party addressed this issue in their arguments before the West Virginia Supreme Court. Chief Justice Bunn argued that this oversight is significant and warrants further examination.

Background

The case involves a group of petitioners, including Alexander Fleming, Carole Carter, Carol Gallant, Barbara Humes, and Benjamin Buckley, who are challenging actions taken by state officials, specifically Matt Herridge and Todd Hooker. The dispute centers around issues related to tort, contract, and real property, but the details of the underlying conflict were not provided in the court filing.

The case reached the West Virginia Supreme Court after the ICA raised concerns about the standing of the petitioners in a footnote of its opinion. The ICA suggested that while it recognized the issue, it chose not to address it further because the respondents did not raise the standing question on appeal. This led to the dissenting opinion from Chief Justice Bunn, who felt that the standing issue should have been a priority for the court.

The Ruling

In his dissent, Chief Justice Bunn stated, "The majority opinion leapfrogs over this necessary inquiry, proceeding directly to address the substantive issues on appeal." He expressed concern that the court was addressing the merits of the case without first determining whether the petitioners had standing to bring their claims. Bunn argued that the court has an obligation to ensure that it has jurisdiction before proceeding with any legal analysis.

The Chief Justice cited previous rulings that established the requirements for standing, emphasizing that a party must demonstrate an injury-in-fact, a causal connection between the injury and the conduct at issue, and that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision. He noted that the ICA had recognized the importance of standing but ultimately chose not to delve into it, leaving the issue unresolved.

Bunn further stated, "Standing cannot be waived," highlighting that the court has a duty to address jurisdictional questions even if the parties do not raise them. He argued that the lack of a thorough examination of standing could lead to decisions made without proper jurisdiction, which undermines the integrity of the judicial process.

Impact

The dissenting opinion from Chief Justice Bunn could have significant implications for future cases in West Virginia. By emphasizing the importance of standing, the dissent may encourage parties to more thoroughly address jurisdictional issues in their legal arguments. It also serves as a reminder that courts must ensure they have the authority to hear a case before proceeding with any substantive analysis.

This dissent may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly in terms of addressing standing. If the courts begin to prioritize standing issues more rigorously, it could change the landscape of litigation in West Virginia, potentially limiting the number of cases that can be heard if parties cannot demonstrate the necessary standing.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether this case can be appealed or if there are related cases pending. However, the dissenting opinion raises important questions that may prompt further legal scrutiny and discussion regarding standing in future cases.