State of West Virginia ex rel. Daniel Dilly, Superintendent of the Rubenstein Juvenile Center v. The Honorable Kurt Hall, Judge of the Circuit Court of Lewis County, The State of West Virginia, and D.P.andState of West Virginia ex rel. Nancy Oldaker v. The Honorable Kurt Hall, Judge of the Circuit Court of Lewis County, The State of West Virginia, and D.P., 902 S.E.2d 487

Two officials (Superintendent Daniel Dilly and Health Services Administrator Nancy Oldaker) at the Rubenstein Juvenile Center were held in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with court orders regarding the care of a resident, D.P., after a jaw injury.
The circuit judge found them in contempt by imposing fines, characterizing the contempt as "civil" and proceeding without a jury trial or clear personal notice to the individuals.
The officials sought writs of prohibition from the West Virginia Supreme Court to preclude enforcement of the contempt orders, arguing that the orders were void for lack of due process and procedural protections.
The judge relied on West Virginia's criminal contempt statute but never properly served or notified the officials that they themselves would be on trial for contempt.
The Supreme Court analyzed whether the contempts were civil or criminal and the required procedural protections for each under both state and federal Constitutional due process.
The Court consolidated the cases for decision.

Issue	Dilly/Oldaker's Argument	Judge Hall's Argument	Held
Was the contempt truly criminal or civil?	The fines imposed were criminal punishment, improperly labeled as civil.	The contempt was properly classified as civil, not criminal.	The contempt was criminal in nature.
Did the officials receive adequate notice and process?	No, they received insufficient and unclear notice and had no opportunity to prepare a defense.	Procedures were sufficient for civil contempt; personal service to individuals not required.	Notice was inadequate for criminal contempt—due process was denied.
Was there a right to a jury trial?	Yes, indirect criminal contempt requires a jury trial unless waived.	No, not required for civil contempt.	Jury trial (or waiver) required; omission voided contempt order.
Does the lack of procedural safeguards void the orders?	Yes, lack of notice, counsel, adversarial process, and jury void orders.	The process was consistent with civil contempt powers.	Orders are void for want of jurisdiction and due process.

State ex rel. Peacher v. Sencindiver, 160 W.Va. 314 (prohibition only issues when court exceeds jurisdiction)
West Virginia Dept. of Mil. Affairs & Pub. Safety, Div. of Juvenile Services v. Berger, 203 W. Va. 468 (distinguishing civil from criminal contempt)
State ex rel. Robinson v. Michael, 166 W. Va. 660 (purpose determines civil or criminal contempt)
State ex rel. Koppers Co. v. Int'l Union of Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers, 171 W. Va. 290 (indirect criminal contemnors entitled to full criminal defendant rights)
Simpson v. Stanton, 119 W. Va. 235 (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
In re Frieda Q., 230 W. Va. 652 (jury trial requirements for indirect criminal contempt, overruled in part)