Harshbarger v. Gainer

Although I do not agree with all the majority’s reasons, I concur in the result because Justice Harshbarger should not benefit from his participation in In re Dostert, 174 W.Va. 258, 324 S.E.2d 402 (1984). Dostert liberalized the judicial pension’s eligibility requirements, thereby making Justice Harshbarger eligible for a pension for which he could not otherwise qualify. I agree with the majority that “Justice Harshbarger cannot place any faith in, or rely on a pension that was created by his own act.” Majority opinion supra at 661, 403 S.E.2d at 404. Stated more plainly, “no man ought to be…